[INFJ] Did anyone ever stumble across a complete plan to save the world?

[puzzledheart]

@Work
I guess this means that the insurance companies think the same way and do not think that this is a considerable risk.
Or most of the rich people would sell as they would not pay very high insurance fees over longer periods of time, which they would have to pay if the insurance companies determined that there is a substantial risk of submersion.

 

[puzzledheart]

Just stumbled across the following video and somehow I think this fits here, according to this, they are already planning the first megacities:

A part of their plan for protecting the enviroment is obviously to place people into centrally controlled megacities, run by A.I., aka get them out of nature so to speak so they cannot cause anymore harm. Of course this is connected with central waste management, central air pollution management, consumer choices "assisted" by AI, resource consumption choices "assisted" by AI (I agree that the average person is too dumb, too greedy, too self centered, too egomaniac etc. etc. etc. to make sane consumer / resource consumption choices) and so on. I dont know where they want to grow the food, probably outside these cities in giant vertical hydroponic factories or something. Theoretically, thats a good plan for "defusing" the environmental impact of the average person. But it is most likely dystopic and thats what I dont like about all this.

 

[puzzledheart]

I guess this also fits into this thread very well - seems they made their plan and dont care what the results are. It could be that they (the planners) know something that we dont know (yet). For example, the "vaccination", which should be called "anti-vaccination" by now as it has a negative effect, aka the more jabs you get, the more susceptible you become, could have very interesting results in the next few years, which could enable draconian measures and the average person would go along with it, if they can create "sufficient" panic and terror to control and subjugate the populace.
======
#JordanPeterson #JordanBPeterson #DrJordanPeterson
Dutch Farmer Speaks

======

 

[Roses In The Vineyard]

 

[aeon]

For example, the "vaccination", which should be called "anti-vaccination" by now as it has a negative effect, aka the more jabs you get, the more susceptible you become

Source? Peer-reviewed clinical data?

Cheers,
Ian

 

[just me]

So I am for environmental protection.

They are raping the world for personal gain. I agree.

 

[puzzledheart]

@aeon
I am currently like the giant turtle from "neverending story 1". I sneeze at "peer reviewed". Here a german link, some english links embedded, please do the research:
https://tkp.at/2022/07/27/totales-d...d-massenimpfung-in-australien-und-neuseeland/

@just me
Well IMHO it is a mixture of raping the world for their own gain and trying to save it from environmental destruction, for their own gain once again. Because there are no profits to be made when you are dead and they would die too if the world would end in environmental desaster, or at least they would completely loose control (resource wars etc.). But I think it is clear that the environmental damage was done by the great masses of people, not by the "elites" with their few private jets, yachts, cars and stuff, "they" dont matter in this regard. We do. They are too few to have any significant environmental impact. WE are the ones who bought and still buy the plastics, the chemicals, the piece of sh*t products, the throw away products, inefficient cars like SUVs, the fake food and so on, this was the average person. And thats why they, the "elites", are saying that we must be stopped at all costs. At least thats what I think is going on, it is basically really simple.

 

[just me]

They are cutting all the pines trees and others down. The Amazon will never be the same. They are filling in all the coastal swampy areas and building houses. The deer, beaver, otter, armadillo, and many of the wetlands homeowners are living where the wild once lived.
The rich from oil, gas, and fracking, even water now, and all the oligarchs, home builders...the list is vast.
The Word says the Spirit of God moved across the waters. We have put Him in a cage.
Too many people? True. Does that give Russia the right to kill, steal, and destroy other people for their oil, gas, and their land?

 

[just me]

Paper plates, plastic bottles of water, fast foods in their boxes and plastics: It takes water to clean real ones. Maybe elecricity to dry them and to put them on or in the stove. Hard to make a sandwich without waste, and with a job sometimes.

Your water footprint:
Personal:1,299Gallons/Day
Household: 2,598Gallons/Day
Which is below average.

https://www.watercalculator.org/wfc2 Water Use

 

[aeon]

I sneeze at "peer reviewed"

Then you become highly suspect.

Here a german link, some english links embedded, please do the research:

Thanks for the link, but please understand, when you make an assertion or claim with no citation, it is on you to do, and provide, the research.

Cheers,
Ian

 

[puzzledheart]

@aeon
Well I think you misinterprete corporate science, pseudoscience, scientism etc. or how you want to call it as science. I think that peer reviewed corporate science studies, peer reviewed pseudoscience studies, peer reviewed scientism studies etc. are not much better than the regular corporate science, pseudoscience, scientism studies etc.. For example, for covid, we know exactly what works and what does not work, confirmed by real studies, real experts (not the TV experts and talking heads), aka by real science. So science still exists, even in 2022.
We have a lot of data about the "vaccination" (see for example the link I sent you), hence I said that by now it is quite clear that it is an anti-"vaccination". I dont think that corporate science, pseudoscience, scientism etc. is ever going to make a peer reviewed study (aka a fake study) about all this, especially not a comparison between the "vaccinated" and the (real) un"vaccinated" (not the pseudo-un"vaccinated" by their definition), no matter how much data and numbers were gathered, as it will be hard to twist the obvious numbers and such a study would attract unwanted attention to the complete and total failure of the "vaccination", or rather, the anti-"vaccination".

 

[uuu]

I don't know who first introduced climate change into this discussion (it might have been me, oops), but I would be interested in reading more takes on the broader notion of "a complete plan to save the world." What would such a plan look like? What makes it "complete"? How much of the world does it have to "save," and is the plan required to incorporate a payoff system for any Pareto inefficiencies it introduces, or are we allowed to assume that there will be a few losers who just have to suck it up?

 

[aeon]

So science still exists, even in 2022.

Yes, and peer review by any and all is the best route to approach objective truth.

peer reviewed study (aka a fake study)

That’s patently laughable.

You can believe whatever you wish, but feelings and thoughts are not facts.

You Do You,
Ian

 

[Roses In The Vineyard]

 

[puzzledheart]

@aeon
Well you can call me the "All Knowing Turtle with the science allergy" or something ;-)

@uuu
A power outage just ate what I wrote so far, this forum here did not save it, "form history control" (firefox addon) did not save it, so thats a good sign, as it shows that technology still does not work, not even when it is about incredibly simply tasks like saving text fields. I did not write all that much, just what a "complete" plan is IMHO and what they are planning to do, aka the "Great Reset"-guys. I have a graphic about what they are trying to do until 2030 and attached it here. So much for the moment!

 

[Work]

@Work
I guess this means that the insurance companies think the same way and do not think that this is a considerable risk.
Or most of the rich people would sell as they would not pay very high insurance fees over longer periods of time, which they would have to pay if the insurance companies determined that there is a substantial risk of submersion.

https://money.com/insurance-climate-change-2022/
the insurance is expensive on those shoreline properties but the wealthy can afford the price and the houses will be rebuilt if damaged or destroyed. There was a bill languishing in congress that would stop the rebuilding of houses in climate change affected flood zones but because of the "uncertainty" of climate change it gets nowhere.

 

[Work]

https://money.com/insurance-climate-change-2022/
the insurance is expensive on those shoreline properties but the wealthy can afford the price and the houses will be rebuilt if damaged or destroyed. There was a bill languishing in congress that would stop the rebuilding of houses in climate change affected flood zones but because of the "uncertainty" of climate change it gets nowhere.

update, seems lots of dem senators want to protect the expensive real estate of their wealthy patrons https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/08/opinion/climate-change-beach-house-erosion.html

 

[Roses In The Vineyard]

 

[Enso]

That has to be a /r/whitepeopletwitter quote.

 

[David Nelson]

Could this be the answer?
https://www.humancondition.com/