Silicon Valley Technocrats Intend To Settle The Moon

I would dare anyone to look at these moon-crazy Technocrats from Silicon Valley and China, and try to justify labeling them as Communists, Socialists or Marxists. It just doesn’t fit. They are Technocrats! ⁃ TN Editor

The moon is all the rage these days. China wants to send people there. So too does the United States and NASA. In fact, just about every country with a space program has some sort of lunar ambition that they hope will play out over the next few years.

Now, there’s a new entrant in this new space race, a nonprofit organization called the Open Lunar Foundation. Based in San Francisco, it’s a group made up of tech executives and engineers—many of them with former ties to NASA—who have serious ambitions to create a lunar settlement.

The driving ethos behind the foundation is to start a development that would not be beholden to a particular country or billionaire. Instead, as the group’s name suggests, Open Lunar wants to create technology for exploring and living on the moon as a type of collaborative effort.

“Our highest ambition is catalyzing and enabling a peaceful and cooperative lunar settlement,” said Chelsea Robinson, the director of policy and governance for Open Lunar. “At this time when there are so many commercial and government actors advancing their efforts on the moon, we are excited to demonstrate a civic approach to participation.”

Open Lunar began a few years ago as something of a thought exercise. A group of friends in Silicon Valley were taking stock of the dramatic improvements in aerospace technology along with the falling cost of rocket launches, thanks to companies like Elon Musk’s Space Exploration Technologies Corp. and Peter Beck’s Rocket Lab. The friends came to the realization that it might soon be possible to create a small lunar settlement for about $2 billion to $3 billion. It’s a hefty sum, but a very achievable one in an era that abounds with wealthy space enthusiasts. And so, the friends decided to explore the idea of going to the moon in earnest.

“The picture that emerged out of those meetings was that you could create a permanent, economically self-sustaining presence on the moon that could be done for the single-digit billions,” said Steve Jurvetson, a venture capitalist, who provided the initial Open Lunar funding. “I got excited by that idea and the compelling nature of the people involved.”

Some of the most prominent members of the group include the astronaut Chris Hadfield, who has spent time on the International Space Station; Will Marshall and Robbie Schingler, co-founders of the satellite maker Planet Labs Inc.; Simon “Pete” Worden, the former director of NASA’s Ames Research Center; and Jurvetson, who has invested in both SpaceX and Planet Labs. Hadfield is listed as a director of Open Lunar in nonprofit filings, while the others are advisors to the foundation. These individuals, along with dozens of other people, have spent the last 18 months meeting in private to figure out what sort of early missions would make the most sense. Working ideas include smaller, cheaper missions to put various probes and robotic systems on the lunar surface rather than one, massive mission.

Some of the most prominent members of the group include the astronaut Chris Hadfield, who has spent time on the International Space Station; Will Marshall and Robbie Schingler, co-founders of the satellite maker Planet Labs Inc.; Simon “Pete” Worden, the former director of NASA’s Ames Research Center; and Jurvetson, who has invested in both SpaceX and Planet Labs. Hadfield is listed as a director of Open Lunar in nonprofit filings, while the others are advisors to the foundation. These individuals, along with dozens of other people, have spent the last 18 months meeting in private to figure out what sort of early missions would make the most sense. Working ideas include smaller, cheaper missions to put various probes and robotic systems on the lunar surface rather than one, massive mission.

It was Robinson, a longtime nonprofit organizer, and Jessy Kate Schingler, a software engineer who most recently worked at a rocket startup, that turned the brainstorming into a formal organization. Schingler took on the role of director of policy and governance. Now, the foundation’s small team has been hiring full-time hardware and software engineers for Open Lunar and putting the rest of the executive structure in place.

“Lunar activity is exploding,” Jessy Kate Schingler said. “There are governments and companies intensely focused on going, but there is no third pillar representing the possibility of doing things differently. If we don’t roll up our sleeves and get involved, then by definition the future of human settlement in space will reflect the status quo of those currently in power. To see things done differently on the moon, we had to start experimenting now.”

Read full story here…

Also see:

Designing the First Full-Time Human Habitat on the Moon

Have Engineers Just Discovered The Perfect Spot To Build An Underground Colony On The Moon?


Russia to build Moon colony by 2040

Soylent Green

Professor In Sweden Suggests ‘Eating Human Flesh To Save The Climate’

The 1973 movie Soylent Green, staring Charlton Heston and Edward G. Robinson, ended with the desperate proclamation, “It’s people!”, referring to society’s primary food source, Soylent Green.  ⁃ TN Editor

Oftentimes, the climate alarmists are their own worst enemy. It sounds reasonable enough that carbon emissions might have an impact on the climate, but it’s a rather nasty thing to prove, especially when alarmist predictions fail, over and over again. It’s far from the “scientific consensus.” But the alarmists don’t tone down their rhetoric — they ratchet it up to 11. They want to take away your plastic strawsyour cars, your burgers. Then there’s this behavioral scientist in Sweden who wants us to eat human flesh to deal with the effects of climate change.

No, this isn’t The Onion or The Babylon Bee. This is a Swedish professor appearing on Swedish television advocating for cannibalism, because climate change is just that dire. It can’t be lunacy if it’s done in the name of climate change, can it?

Earlier this week, Magnus Söderlund, professor of marketing and strategy at the Stockholm School of Economics, spoke at the Gastro Summit, a discussion on the future of food in the case of a climatepocalypse, The Epoch Times reported.

Söderlund spoke on the topic, “Can you Imagine Eating Human Flesh?” He argued for breaking down the ancient taboos against desecrating the human corpse and, well, cannibalism. The clip is available on State Swedish Television channel TV4 at this link. The end of the video’s description roughly translates to “the possibility of eating human flesh – to save the climate.” How cannibalism would have any impact on the climate is anyone’s guess, and it seems the professor is more focused on dealing with the aftereffects of climate change, anyway.

According to The Epoch Times, Söderlund dismissed taboos against cannibalism as “conservative.” He suggested that people’s resistance to eating human flesh “could be overcome, little by little, beginning with persuading people to just taste it.” In the video, he warned “that since food sources will be scarce in the future, people must be introduced to eating things they have thus far considered disgusting—among them, human flesh.”

While the professor also discussed breaking other taboos on eating pets and insects, his talk focused on cannibalism. Swedish articles on the debate use the term “mannisko-kötts branschen,” which translates to “the human flesh industry.”

According to his bio, Söderlund’s research focuses on “consumer behavior,” “reactions to marketing stimuli,” “psychological reactions,” and “our understanding of what it means to be a consumer (and a marketer) in a society increasingly obsessed with consumption.”

Taking this psychological approach, the professor said that people can be “tricked” into “making the right decisions.”

Söderlund appeared to equate resistance to cannibalism with capitalist selfishness. “Are we humans too selfish to live sustainably?” he asked.

Even the audience for a Climatepocalypse food summit seemed unwilling to break the “taboo” against eating human flesh. Then the professor asked the audience how many would be open to the idea, not many hands went up and some people groaned. The professor later told the media that 8 percent of conference participants said they would be open to trying cannibalism.

When asked if he would try eating human flesh, Söderlund said, “I feel somewhat hesitant but to not appeal overly conservative… I’d have to say… I’d be open to at least tasting it.”

Even if cannibalism were not grotesque, it would still be unhealthy. The Fore people in Papua New Guinea practiced ritualistic cannibalism. The women in the tribe would eat the human flesh of their dead relatives — so that worms and maggots did not eat it. The women — and some children — started dying of kuru, a disease meaning “shivering” or “trembling.”

Victims first had trouble walking, a sign they were about to lose control over their limbs. Then they would lose control over their emotions, and people dubbed the disease the “laughing death.” Within a year, the victims couldn’t get up off the floor, feed themselves, or control bodily functions.

Read full story here…

Green New Deal

Claim: Green New Deal Is Cheaper Than Climate Change

The wild predictions of cost for implementing the Green New Deal are staggering. Nonetheless, claims are now being made that GNC is cheap compared to the negative effects of ‘global warming’.

The irresponsible economic promotion of this is equally staggering. Even a college freshman taking Economics 101 knows that all economic activity is directly related to the amount of energy available to it. If energy consumption is curtailed, so is economic activity and thus, the welfare of all humans. The object of Sustainable Development is not to increase economic activity, but rather vastly reduce it.  ⁃ TN Editor

Recently, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) rejected calls for a presidential primary debate dedicated to climate change. DNC chair Tom Perez argued that focusing on climate change alone would be unfair to those whose campaigns are more focused on other issues—which might be a compelling argument if experts said those matters had the potential to lead to civilizational collapse.

This was a missed opportunity to demand that the candidates who have not authored or signed on to an ambitious proposal to transform our economy and energy infrastructure over a relatively short time frame, like the Green New Deal, explain how they’ll pay for their more moderate approaches.

“But how will we pay for it?” is rarely asked in discussions of the military budget or trillion-dollar corporate tax cuts. But the media consistently demands that Democratic candidates offer detailed explanations of how they would finance Medicare for All or dealing with the student loan crisis.

It’s the same with climate change. When Bernie Sanders released his climate proposal, The New York Times described it as a “$16 Trillion Climate Plan” and noted that it was the “most expensive proposal from the field of Democratic presidential candidates aimed at reining in planet-warming greenhouse gases” in the very first sentence of the story. Newsweek ran a piece headlined “Here’s How Andrew Yang’s Nearly $5 Trillion Climate Plan Stacks Up Against His Opponents.” And many outlets promulgated a scary but utterly bogus estimate, apparently just invented by Republicans, that Representative Alexandria Ocasio Cortez’s plan for a Green New Deal would cost taxpayers $93 trillion.

If we’re to have any hope of mobilizing the effort scientists tell us is necessary, we have to turn this question around. Because the reality is that even if we set aside the human and biospheric costs of climate change—the excess deaths from extreme weather and encroaching diseases, the refugee crises, habitat loss, and mass extinctions—the economic cost of allowing temperatures to rise even a couple of degrees above that target is simply staggering.

According to some estimates, they would dwarf the price tag associated with even the most ambitious proposals to tackle the problem, and that’s not even factoring in the new economic opportunities that transitioning away from fossil fuels would confer on countries that take the lead in that process.

Although the cost estimates vary, there is almost as much agreement on this broad point among economists who have studied the potential impacts as there is within the scientific community that human activities are warming the planet.

In 2015, the Economist Intelligence Unit compiled a peer-reviewed report warning that “the asset management industry—and thus the wider community of investors of all sizes— is facing the prospect of significant losses from the effects of climate change.” Using an average of current warming models, they projected that investors would lose $4.2 trillion in assets by the end of the century, “roughly on a par with the total value of all the world’s listed oil and gas companies or Japan’s entire GDP.” The researchers added that “the average losses to be expected are not the only source of concern; on the contrary, the outliers, the particularly extreme scenarios, may matter most of all.” In the worst-case scenario they considered, 10 percent of the world’s assets would be wiped out.

That’s just the losses to investors. They note that “while the value of future losses from the private sector is substantial, this is dwarfed by the forecast harms when considered from a government point of view.”

Read full story here…

Carbon Tax

Carbon Tax Cometh: Where 2020 Democrats Stand On Global Warming

Democrat candidates for President are uniformly alarmist over global warming, but most are also pushing Carbon Tax as a solution. Carbon Tax is one step away from Technocracy’s original Energy Currency formulated in the 1930s. ⁃ TN Editor

Two events shifted the climate change discussion among 2020 Democratic presidential candidates in August 2019. Jay Inslee, the governor of Washington state who centered his campaign around the issue, dropped out of the race, while  Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders launched a detailed plan to fulfill the goals of the Green New Deal.

“The climate crisis is not only the single greatest challenge facing our country; it is also our single greatest opportunity to build a more just and equitable future,” Sanders’ plan says.

Many candidates have plans, some lengthy and detailed, some brief and vague, to address climate change. Generally, the candidates support recommitting to the Paris climate agreement and implementing a Green New Deal, at least in some form. But there are some exceptions.

Former Maryland Rep. John Delaney, for example, tweeted that the current Green New Deal, which includes guaranteeing a job to all Americans, “is about as realistic as Trump saying that Mexico is going to pay for the wall.”

That isn’t the only point of disagreement among candidates. The Democrats’ climate change proposals splinter in terms of how they plan to cut emissions, specifically whether or not they support implementing a tax on carbon.

As of this writing, candidates without specific or detailed climate change plans include New York Mayor Bill de Blasio and former U.S. Housing and Urban Development Department Secretary Julián Castro.

We’ll take you through some of the key points of the climate change discussion among the Democratic field. To see where the individual candidates stand on climate change policies, check out our chart.

Climate change basics

Climate change is an expansive issue, encompassing increased temperature trends, sea level rise, ice mass loss, changes in plant blooming and extreme weather events. Global warming refers to the long-term warming of the Earth.

Burning fossil fuels, like coal, oil and natural gas, has been the main source of greenhouse gas emissions into Earth’s atmosphere. Without humans contributing these emissions, greenhouse gases, through the greenhouse effect, keep Earth’s surface warm. But the addition of emissions caused by human activities has led to a rise in global temperatures.

Carbon dioxide is the primary greenhouse gas emitted through human activities. U.S. greenhouse gas emissions originate mainly from transportation, electricity and industry.

“We can’t make climate change go away anytime soon, because the greenhouse gases we’ve already put into the atmosphere have not yet exerted their full impact on the climate system,” said Jennifer Francis, a senior scientist at Woods Hole Research Center.

Paris Agreement and foreign policy

Countries all over the world took a dramatic step to address climate change in December 2015 with the United Nations Paris Agreement. The agreement is an attempt by most countries to limit a global temperature increase during this century to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.

Under the agreement, developed countries pledged to take the lead in reducing emissions and to support developing countries in similar actions. The United States is one of the top emitters of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel combustion, according to the International Energy Agency.

Former President Barack Obama championed the Paris Agreement. But President Donald Trump pledged to cancel it and announced his plans to pull the United States out of the agreement in 2017, claiming that it was unfair to U.S. workers. (In the past, Trump has denied that global warming is real.)

Some Democratic candidates have said they will make the goals of the Paris climate agreement more ambitious.

Former Vice President Joe Biden’s climate plan states that he’ll ramp up the targets of the agreement, make the commitments more transparent and enforceable, and, more broadly, integrate climate change into his foreign policy strategy. That includes conditioning trade agreements on partners meeting targets for cutting emissions.

Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren proposed a plan to address climate change in her approach to national security. She wants the Pentagon to achieve net-zero carbon emissions for its non-combat bases and infrastructure by 2030.

Green New Deal

Seven of 10 Democratic presidential candidates who are members of Congress co-signed the Green New Deal, a resolution that addresses climate change, pollution, and income and racial inequality. The Democratic measure was introduced by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Sen. Ed Markley of Massachusetts in February 2019.

The resolution cites the 2018 National Climate Assessment, produced by over 300 federal and non-federal experts, which says climate change has worsened and increased a variety of events across the United States, including wildfires in the Northwest, droughts in the Southwest, flooding in the Southeast, snow storms in the Northeast and heavy rains in the Midwest. Earth’s climate is changing faster than at any point in the history of modern civilization, it found.

The Green New Deal focuses on goals to combat climate change, rather than specific paths. It calls for a transition to a net-zero greenhouse gas emissions economy and an energy sector powered entirely by zero-emission sources.

The Democratic presidential candidates who co-sponsored the deal are Warren, New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, New York California Sen. Kamala Harris, Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Massachusetts Rep. Seth Moulton, and Bernie Sanders.

Warren wants to invest $2 trillion over 10 years in “green research, manufacturing, and exporting,” with the goal to create jobs. She’s also proposed a ban on all new fossil fuel leases, including drilling offshore and on public lands.

Sanders’ 2020 Green New Deal plan promises to end unemployment by creating 20 million jobs in auto manufacturing, construction, energy efficiency retrofitting and other sectors to combat climate change. Sanders also plans to allocate $40 billion to a Climate Justice Resiliency Fund that provides communities of color, Native Americans, people with disabilities, children and the elderly with a fair transition to a greener economy.

Multiple candidates incorporated economic and racial justice into their climate change proposals through protecting public lands, addressing environmental and health threats, and creating jobs.

In October 2017, Booker introduced an environmental justice act in the Senate to, in part, require federal agencies to implement strategies that identify and address the human health or environmental effects of their programs and policies with respect to communities of color, indigenous communities and low-income communities. Harris, Sanders and Warren co-sponsored the bill, which was never passed.

Alvaro Palacios Casanova, a senior policy advocate at the Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment, told PolitiFact that coming up with solutions to benefit environmental and social justice causes is difficult due to the fossil fuel industry’s political influence.

As of Aug. 26, 2019, 20 Democratic presidential candidates signed a pledgeto not take any contributions over $200 from oil, gas and coal industry executives, lobbyists and political action committees (PACs). Bullock and Delaney haven’t signed the pledge.

Carbon pricing

Various Democrats have incorporated putting a price on greenhouse gas emissions, typically through a tax, into their climate change plans. They include Biden, Delaney, South Bend, Ind. Mayor Pete Buttigieg, former Pennsylvania Rep. Joe Sestak, author and activist Marianne Williamson, and entrepreneur Andrew Yang.

In a January 2019 opinion piece, a bipartisan group of economists said that a carbon tax is the most cost-effective method to reduce emissions “at the scale and speed that is necessary.”

But carbon taxes are not without controversy. Ten states have active carbon pricing programs, according to the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, but voters have rejected carbon pricing initiatives in other states like Washington, where Inslee endorsed the program.

Read full story here…

climate change

Climate Change: Five Surprising, Peer-Reviewed Facts

Despite the political rhetoric to the contrary, indisputable facts about the earth’s climate remain. Politicalization is designed to drive the world into Sustainable Development, aka Technocracy. ⁃ TN Editor

On the weekend of August 10–11, as if in chorus, major online news websites called on people to stop consuming meat. The calls echoed a recent United Nations report that recommended doing so to fight climate change.

It surprised many, but there are other more surprising facts about climate change that are hardly published in our everyday news media.

Below are some facts—scientifically recognized and published in peer-reviewed journals—that may raise your eyebrows.

1. Climate Has Always Changed—Always

All proxy temperature data sets reveal that there have been cyclical changes in climate in the past 10,000 years. There is not a single climate scientist who denies this well-established fact. It doesn’t matter what your position on the causes and magnitude and danger (or not) of current climate change is—you have to be on board on this one. Climate has always changed. And it has changed in both directions, hot and cold. Until at least the 17th century, all these changes occurred when almost all humans were hunters, gatherers, and farmers.

2. Temperature Increase in the Past Was Not Caused by Humans

Industrialization did not happen until the 17th century. Therefore, no prior changes in climate were driven by human emissions of carbon dioxide. In the last 2,000 years alone, global temperatures rose at least twice (around the 1st and 10th centuries) to levels very similar to today’s, and neither of those warm periods were caused by humans.

3. The Arctic and Antarctic Are Doing Better than Ever!

Yes, you read that right. The 10,000-year Holocene paleoclimatology records reveal that both the Arctic and Antarctic are in some of their healthiest states. The only better period for the poles was the 17th century, during the Little Ice Age, when the ice mass levels were higher than today’s. For the larger part of the past 10,000 years, the ice mass levels were lower than today’s. Despite huge losses in recent decades, ice mass levels are at or near their historic highs.

4. Polar Bears and Other Species Are Not Dying But Flourishing!

If you paid attention to the previous fact, then the following one is not hard to understand. Polar bears—often used as a symbol of climate doomsday—are one of the key species in the Arctic. Contrary to the hype surrounding their extinction fear, the population numbers have actually increased in the past two decades.

Last year, the Canadian government considered increasing polar bear killing quotas as their increasing numbers posed a threat to the Inuit communities living in the Nunavut area.

The increase in population size flies in the face of those who continue to claim otherwise in the popular news media. And it is not just the polar bears in the Arctic. Other critical species elsewhere, like tigers, are also making a comeback.

5. Carbon Dioxide Is Not a Temperature Control Knob

While most of the current climatologists who collaborate with the United Nations believe anthropogenic CO2 emissions have exacerbated natural warming in recent decades, there is no empirical proof to support their claim. The only way to test it would be to wait and see if their assumptions come true.

The entire climate fraternity was in for a surprise when global temperature between 2000 and 2016 failed to rise as anticipated by the climate alarmists. The scientists assumed that rising CO2 emissions from human activity would result in a rapid rise in temperature, but they didn’t.

This proved that atmospheric CO2 concentrations are not the primary factor controlling global temperature. Consideration of a much longer period (10,000 or more years) suggests that CO2 had no significant role to play in temperature increases. CO2 never was the temperature control knob.

These are some of the many climate facts that the media refuses to acknowledge, like the impending solar minimum that NASA has predicted for the next two solar cycles between 2021 and 2041, ushering in a period of global cooling like it did during the solar minimum of 17th century.

There are other facts that run contrary to popular belief, such that there has been no increase in the frequency or intensity of floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires, droughts, or other extreme weather events. Even the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported low confidence that global warming—manmade or not—was driving increases in extreme weather events.

The list is endless. It would be naïve not to acknowledge this blatant and lopsided reporting in our news media.

Read full story here…