Comments by "Edward Cullen" (@edwardcullen1739) on "Sabine Hossenfelder" channel.

@romanscerbak5167 Only if corruption remains unchecked. Perhaps your point is that "corruption is inevitable and can't be stopped", which is really hard to argue against, but then, there are (were...) some societies that are less corrupt than others, so maybe there is a way?
1
@euler010 Perfect analysis! Marxism fails because there is no distinction between politics and economics - same with NatSoc and Fascism. They all suffer from this same flaw. The only "separation of powers" we need is economics/politics/morality. They can inform each other, but never _dictate_.
1
 @Jamex07 0% falsehoods. The real problem is that people don't understand what a free market actually is - the "best" they have is a caricature created by Marxists.
1
That's because the West is currently closer to National Socialism than a "free market economy". Socialism is the problem, not the solution. Anyone arguing with me is a (useful) idiot or evil - if you don't understand why we're closer to NatSoc than free market, I'm happy to answer questions.
1
You cannot fix all the problems on Earth. The problems of Earth are problems of human nature. Best you can do is start somewhere new and try not replicate some of the problems.
1
@killator3421 Indeed. The issue is the distinction between dogmatism and religiosity. "Modern science" is a system of religious beliefs (have you, personally, verified every observation?) that has its rituals, commandments, sins and priesthood. The difference between science and traditional religions is that its objective is the persuit of knowledge, whereas traditional religions have the objective of "living a good life". Adherence to dogma results in people taking a "vaccine" that doesn't meet any of the definitions of the word (well, until they changed the definition, that is...) and social shaming of those who said "wait, this doesn't make sense". The correlation between those who are religious and those who refused to take unproven (and it turns out, untested) vaccines is very high, apparently. Both religion and science have their place and the faults of one are the faults of the other, because they both involve people.
1
Or maybe some just don't believe that "everything" is our fault? Or maybe the proposed solutions include ideas that would kill millions, when the "threat" is "millions will die"? I don't trust the motives of the people pushing it and have enough problems making it through the day. Sorry.
1
@Emperorhirohito19272 Can you explain the Medieval Warm period? The climate models can't. Technology? Like the weather stations showing increasing temperatures - weather stations that don't exist? (This was in the news recently; search "100 weather stations don't exist") It was NEVER about "saving the planet", it was ALWAYS about money and power - who has it and who wants it.
1
@bovellois 😂
1
@DiscipleOfHeavyMeta1 Right and it's been hotter than it is now and CO2 has been higher than it is now.
1
@SURok695 Chaos theory is precisely my point. If you are trying to make an empirical claim, you need to be able to back it up. If you just wave your hands in the air and draw a chart that shows "line go up", I'm going to call 🐂💩 Innocent until proven guilty. You must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that climate change is being caused by human activity. That's how science works. I'm sorry you don't understand that, but that's not my fault; I didn't make the rules, I'm just following them.
1
We could well see a future where "option a" is retinal replacement, and "option b" is direct cortical stimulation, reserved for those with option nerve damage (there is a ?virus? that specifically targets the optic nerve, causing blindness).
1
@SabineHossenfelder Option A: We empoverish ourselves so that we return to pre-industrial state of economy, with equivalent population. Option B: We continue to grow, the climate becomes inhospitable, Homo Sapiens is eradicated, world eventually returns to equilibrium; humanity does not even qualify to be recorded in geological scale. These are the alternatives we are presented. They are dressed-up and downplayed, but this is the reality. I don't want A and don't care about B. When someone presents an actual, WORKABLE plan that both increases global standards of living to at least 1990s levels everywhere AND "saves the climate", I will listen. Until then, all I see is falling standards of living across the world, except for the very rich. The same very rich who are constantly flying around the world, telling me to consume less.
1
 @emanwe01 Dunno, but I can totally believe it. "Dual use" means that it's not a heater, it's "air conditioning". Aircon is bad, according to the environmentalists. 🤷‍♂️🤦‍♂️
1