Call me crazy, but taken to the logical extreme, wearing face masks and observing (and enforcing) social-religious purity rites will disrupt most humans beyond our capacity to live civilly.

For thousands of generations, for heritage beyond all but the memory written in our genetic code, we humans have lived in close communion with one another, often touching for work, for communication, for cooperation, for comfort, for comradery, for communion, and for intimacy.

After a successful run of more than 100 years hardly observing more than common-sense hygiene practices and routine handwashing, we’ve all the sudden lost our collective mind and we are afraid, not only to touch each other, but to even approach each other, and the gravest, hateful sinner is the one you fails to don a face covering.

No, for the sake of humanity, no.

We humans cannot survive without closeness.

I suppose the face-mask fad will wax and wane like all fads and cults, but what if it doesn’t? What if politicians and the powerful find it useful? What if the authoritarians find the lust for control overwhelming and unrelinquishable? What if mob-mentality rules and nonconformists are scapegoated and actually stoned or shot or caged? That is not a world I would wish on the vilest among us. It is certainly not a world I’d want to live in.

More than enough experts have weighed-in regarding mask efficacy and lack thereof, and nuance is lost to most. Masks obviously do some with regard to reducing respiratory expulsions, but is it enough? Are normal respiratory expulsions, even with the currently feared virus, significant as a vector for infection and transmission? Evidence is mounting that it is not.

Evidence is leading to the standard vectors of face-to-hands-to-face and direct contact with infected people. Yes, transmission of this virus and some other viruses through the air do occur, but they are rare. Most occur with intimate or jubilant physical contact. We’ll be wise to not be too familiar and close in crowds and with strangers, but we cut ourselves off from physical contact at existential peril.

Coercion is evil.

Coercing and mandating certain behaviors establishes you as part of evil and part of the problem. Even if the mandates and coercion are actually for the better and efficacious, we destroy our humanity, we destroy our souls, in the enforcement. We cheapen life and individuality to the ever-increasing central power and authoritarian control. We become the brave new world, and, figuratively or literally, we all die.

Wear a mask if you feel like it, but please respect others and do not try to force or shame behaviors that you happen to prefer at the moment, especially with such new and unproven behaviors, behaviors that certainly go against all of human history.

I wonder if the policy makers ever considered other infectious diseases. Have we ever effectively countered seasonal flu? We have effective vaccines against flu each year, and standard treatments, and many thousands die annually regardless.

I noticed this pretentious article:

A ginormous team funded handsomely by the WHO found only 44 useful studies in over 20,000 research papers reviewed. In other words, there is no science to speak of on the matter. No one can deny the science. There is no science as of today. The authoritative claims are simply pretentious.

I maintain my assertion that there is inadequate evidence to support any policy measures, especially masks. Leave people alone and encourage them to be conscientious and wash their hands, while practicing general good hygiene. Face covering and all other presumed or proposed measures should be left solely to the discretion of every individual.

Given the lack of explanation, it is difficult to ascertain anything regarding the article’s assertion that closer than 1 meter is too close. People seldom linger that close to one another. It seems a difficult assertion to support. I assert their claim that the more the distance the better is specious wishful thinking. They are hyping their own prejudice.

Is six feet a good guideline? I’m okay with that. I am opposed to codification and enforcement. Nothing says, “We care,” like sending armed enforcement officers to shoot you if you fail to comply.

It is amazing to see assertions that amount to speculation about idealized suppositions garnered from precious little evidence. It is simply wishful thinking proposed to justify the failings of imposed policy and restrictions of universal freedoms.

“The odds of developing an infection with a coronavirus were reduced by 78% when wearing any mask, compared with the odds of infection when not wearing a mask. When using masks that conform to the N95 standard, this figure increased to 96%.” Come on! That is nonsense. The assertion as made indicates essentially no one wearing an N95 mask could get sick. Absolute fantasy! Why are healthcare workers getting sick then? When researchers make such obviously absurd claims, they must not be countenanced. It is insanity. If there is any truth in the statements, it has been lost in the delivery. “Although the direct evidence is limited,” we will speculate in our favor anyway. Orwell would be proud.

“the authors acknowledged their analysis has some limits.” Far tighter limits than they are willing to admit.

The article even admits NONE of the studies considered were actual tests, randomized and controlled, NONE!!! Put plainly, there is no evidence to support policy imposition. Coercion is evil. Don’t be evil.

Finally, look at the old information. Various studies were suggesting that masks in all situations were an unjustifiable expense. None that I found directly suggested eliminating masks, but they argued that available evidence didn’t support the use of masks, even in operating rooms, and they suggested well-designed studies to answer the question. No one cared until it mattered to policy failure and politics.

Look it up for yourself. You won’t trust my evidence regardless.

From April this year,


A total of 19 randomised controlled trials were included in this study – 8 in community settings, 6 in healthcare settings and 5 as source control. Most of these randomised controlled trials used different interventions and outcome measures. In the community, masks appeared to be effective with and without hand hygiene, and both together are more protective. Randomised controlled trials in health care workers showed that respirators, if worn continually during a shift, were effective but not if worn intermittently. Medical masks were not effective, and cloth masks even less effective. When used by sick patients randomised controlled trials suggested protection of well contacts.”

Worth repeating, “Medical masks were not effective, and cloth masks even less effective.”

With nearly no exceptions, our leaders have betrayed us in 2020. Much of it was fueled by political divisiveness and power-lust “libido dominandi”, but superstition and fear have dominated, and dissenters have been decried as science-deniers or worse. It is sad. We have been taken advantage of. As a whole and individually, we have been abused.

Few officials have admitted any error or culpability. Few of us are willing to admit to our own gullibility.

We were naive. It hurts to admit it. It hurts to admit our own complicity. It reopens the wounds to acknowledge we were abused, but healing cannot begin while we are in denial.

Viruses have been with us always. Viruses will be with us beyond the life of any of us alive today, and we cannot fight them. Viruses will take too many of us. It is a sad fact. Mind your health and wash your hands. More is futile. Other efforts are worthless, self-aggrandizing virtue signaling, which merely afford us an illusion of control. We cannot control viruses. It is delusional to suppose otherwise. We are powerless before viruses, and we live in denial when we refuse to admit it.

We were abused. We should try to hold our leaders and the experts accountable.

We were abused. We should admit it and do our best to go back to a normal life attending our health wisely and without overwrought emotion and worry.

We must not tolerate coercion and house arrest. We must not tolerate edicts that do more harm than good. We must demand our normal, virtuous freedoms.

First, do no harm. That must be our touchstone and the foundation of any demand we dare make. Humility must rule our thinking.

The proven wisdom of a full century shows us plainly we erred in supposing we could control or fight a virus. We must not repeat the folly.

Politics is the now. Religion is the always. Politics is irrevocably rooted in personality. Religion is rooted in truth. Let’s be honest with ourselves and deemphasize the politics and differences; let us focus on honesty, understanding, and truth; let us live out the heart-felt religion we all claim to believe. What you do is what you believe. You can’t say you believe in peace while practicing (or calling for) violence and coercion. You can’t believe in healing while causing harm.

The actions of Captain Crozier really bother me. The fact that so many laud his selfishness disturbs me deeply and weighs heavy on my heart.

Consider the following:
Guam is reasonably comparable to the combined cities of Moore and Norman, Oklahoma.

Assume 5,000 foreign-language refugees under USAF care are headed your way, to Moore-Norman. More than 100 of them are known to be infected with COVID-19, four of the infected were already mediflighted in. What do you think? By the way, you cannot leave. You are in lockdown and surrounded by the ocean (comparing to Guam). Would you be bending over backward to work with Tinker AFB to put all these refugees in your local hotel rooms, your local hospital? Think what military leaders would be facing. Consider how much the military did on Guan practically instantaneously, in mere days, accomplishing most of it before a letter went out that made more than one hundred million mothers in our country hate the military leadership, including the Commander in Chief.

Oh, and did I mention that taking these refugees into your community disables one of the most powerful weapons in the world? A weapon hundreds of millions of lives depend on being ready to fight, standing ready to defend?

Crozier shut out his leadership, his chain of command, telling them he was satisfied all was going as well as it could. Crozier didn’t care for you. He didn’t care for his crew. He was simply selfish. He considered his own safety above his career. If he cannot value his career, I certainly cannot.

Further, if Crozier loved his sailors, why is his concern superseding the love of Governor Lou Leon Guerrero for her fellow Guamanians? What if she had refused to let the ship enter her harbor? What if she had deployed Guam’s defenses with orders to stop the ship at all costs? Would the Captain unleash the weapons under his command against a US protectorate? What if?

Further, why is Crozier’s selfishness lauded while Governor Guerrero’s concerns are dismissed? The military is supposed to protect the civilians, not impose on them, and not make demands of them. Crozier emphasized the USA is not at war. Fact, the Constitution forbids the quartering of troops in peacetime. It is un-American for the military to demand lodging. The US Navy was requesting and making agreements as fast as possible. All that could be done was being done without violating American principles and our Constitution. At the very least, Crozier’s demands were un-American. Knowing such officers exist in our military bodes ill for our enlisted service members. The requirement to relieve Crozier was absolute.

Is it a fair assertion to state our military has become a cancer?

I advocate for a strong military, but haven’t we gone too far?

We must have a standing navy. I assert we do not need a standing army, at least not one capable of conducting warfare. We need reservers. We need standing capabilities, but an active army needs activity. Armies, by nature, need war. (War is hell.)

Air force? We need some. Don’t we have too much? Space force? Well, maybe, but too much seems inevitable from inception.

I advocate for less government, especially less entitlements. Isn’t our military treated as an entitlement in many quarters? Don’t we Oklahomans feel our military in our state is essential, that we are entitled to it here?

We need more balance and less government, including the military.

Because I work alongside many members of our military, I know it as a good thing. Our military service members are as good as any, any people regardless of grouping, every people of every grouping.

I’m promilitary, but I do think we have too much. We can cut back in ways that benefit all in the long run.

The article speaks to the institution of the military. It seems to me the article is correct. I cannot envision a military coup d’état in any conceivable future scenario, but understanding how our military might work against our society, “a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal,” is needful. We cannot fix problems we refuse to acknowledge.

While I find the point of the article valid, the article and the professor are too whiny for my taste. I think the problem is identified. We need it better and more rationally defined, and we need solutions. I suggest starting with refocusing the national objectives for the military, and refocusing the overall national policies, including foreign policies, to serve the interests of liberty here at home. “Be the change you want to see in the world,” is applicable to all, to every individual, to every institution, including our government. I aver the greatest good in the world is individual liberty and responsibility. Refocus and reduce objectives, and reduce budgets accordingly.

“West Point’s high national rankings on annual college lists are due to its resources and reputation for the highest student academic standards. A closer look reveals, first, that the “resources” are courtesy of the American taxpayer—an over-inflated budget of $500 million a year, even though the school graduates only 950 cadets annually.” Three minutes of internet search did not let me confirm or refute. Anyone have references? Half-a-megabuck per graduated is unreasonable. We cannot continue such a course if it is even close to true. Much too much government.

While I find the point of the article valid, the article and the professor are too whiny for my taste. I think the problem is identified. We need it better and more rationally defined, and we need solutions. I suggest starting with refocusing the national objectives for the military, and refocusing the overall national policies, including foreign policies, to serve the interests of liberty here at home. “Be the change you want to see in the world,” is applicable to all, to every individual, to every institution, including our government. I aver the greatest good in the world is individual liberty and responsibility. Refocus and reduce objectives, and reduce budgets accordingly.

For reference.

Be blessed.

Greetings Brother and sister,

I know not if you will ever actually see this note yourself, but I must try.

I have written before asking you to oppose the war on drugs (oppose all war for that matter). I ask again.

I’m becoming aware of the truths expounded by René Girard. We cannot do unto others first. We must love our neighbor as ourselves.

This is the truth. We must learn to walk in love. We must turn the other cheek. Otherwise, we all die. Continuing to escalate violence is the only feasible way to extinct ourselves. Let’s not.

I trust you still hold your faith honestly, but if you will listen to the above hour, and you can still scapegoat our brethren and throw them in rape cages, I trust your heart will convict you, and you will repent in fasting and mourning until your heart changes.

Brother and sister, can you live the example of following Jesus in His victimhood? Can we end the violence in our own lives each time it invites us to escalate? Can we undo what the adversary is doing?

Be God manifest on earth.

Can we forgive so thoroughly that we value the life of the condemned as our own?

Can we seek restoration rather than punishment? Can we lift people up rather than scapegoat them?

Important enough I want to share it any way possible.

Source: Thread by @bearshrugged: “I was not going to do this as I do not like too personal information on the internet, but the latest Greta Thunberg video is too impactful. […]”

I was not going to do this as I do not like too personal information on the internet, but the latest Greta Thunberg video is too impactful. I do not care what one believes about the climate, but I do care that people understand what is happening with this young lady. 1/
I have a child with high functioning autism (aka Aspregers). Not every person with this syndrome experiences all of the resultant effects, and the effects vary by degree. Sometimes you cannot tell if a person has Aspregers at first blush, but it will eventually emerge. 2/
Two common characteristics that seem to follow in all cases are “literalism” and “rigidity” of thought. Also, hyperfocus on narrow topics is common. Aspregers was known as the “little professors” disease, because Aspregers kids could become experts in narrow topics. 3/
The expertise is not a creative expertise but a rote one. Causation and emotional understanding are difficult for Aspregers sufferers, especially children. Aspergers suffers also are very strict adherents to “the rules” once established in their heads. This ties to rigidity. 4/
If an Aspregers sufferer establishes a set of “facts” in their minds, it is very fixed. It is so fixed that even contrary facts presented to them are rejected in favor of the previously established “facts.” If the counter-information continues, the sufferer becomes frustrated. /5
The frustration turns to hurt and anger, because of the literalism, rigidity, and the way their minds attach to rules and items they have already establish as concrete. The concrete fact is often the first “fact” on the subject they hear. /6
Now imagine a person with these predisposed inclinations hearing for the first time 1) the earth is atmosphere is heating at an incredible pace; 2) humans are causing this rapid heating; and 3) the whole planet is going to die if it is not fixed in 12 years. /7
These three items, for a person not on the spectrum can be weighed, evaluated, and put into perspective. Contrary points can be reviewed and expectations adjusted. For an Aspregers sufferer, this is not easily, if at all achieved. The anxiety compounds. /8
You have both the anxiety of being told you are going to die, coupled with the anxiety and frustration of having contra-facts butting against your established “facts” and literal implications. Parents of children with Aspregers struggle against this convergence every day. /9
How does one teach perspective and thought flexibility to a person whose mind demands literalism and structured “facts” (this is why some Spectrum people are great coders)? The answer is patiently doing so. Demonstrating the safety of exceptions to rules, and alternatives./10
When I see Ms. Thunberg, I see all 9f the frustration of my child, with none of the attempts at perspective and flexibility of thought. In some ways Spectrum people appear robotic because of their rigid mindset, but they are not. The are frustrated, and hurt, and angry. 11/
For a person like me, seeing her rigidity makes me unhappy. However, seeing her frustration and tears at the UN makes me angry. Those pushing her into the spotlight on these issues deserve shame. She is not a robot. Her beliefs are tainted by the Spectrum that frames them. /12
She is being compelled into corners her mind has difficulty navigating, and does nothing but feed her fears (of literal death), and frustration that her mind’s eye does not square with the messy, grey, emotional world. Apregers sufferers must learn to navigate these areas. /13
These areas are instinctive for those of us not on the Spectrum. No matter where you are on this issue, remember Ms. Thunberg’s view is not your view. Someone should be helping her navigate her rigidity and anxiety, not using it as an “automatia” prop. /14

I assert we will burn everything that will burn until we have a better source of energy. Hydro is good but past maximized, and environmentalists want to tear down the dams we have. Solar is a wimp. It has its place, but not on the grid, and anyone telling you otherwise doesn’t understand the engineering and physics of it. Wind is simply a scam, snake oil. Wind-based power generation drives up costs in the grid and in transmission and in maintenance. It cannot be made better. It is disruptive to our power usage and needs. Turbines kill insects by the millions, bats by the thousands (maybe by the millions), and rare and endangered birds by the hundreds. Wind has no net benefits, only pain. Wind turbines do violence against our neighbors with flashing lights, flashing shadows, vertigo-inducing rotation, incessant noise, fire and throw hazard, and property devaluation.

Thus, we burn.

It is immoral to burn edible food while people starve. Biofuels do more harm than good.

There is no alternative to petroleum for a few applications, but we can convert most of our power needs to electricity, which we can renewably generate with nuclear fission for millennia.

We will convert to nuclear electricity generation. It is our only possibility. If we allow fear to continue to drive us, we will increase suffering caused by other power generation methods until we wise up. It will be painful. The longer we wait to convert to essentially 100% nuclear, the greater the pain and suffering we impose on ourselves and our posterity.

As an aside, persuasion is an illusion. Manipulation is a thing, but not persuasion. Compulsion is real enough (and evil), but it is not persuasion. The only true persuader is pain. The fellow who is convinced he can walk through walls may never admit he is delusional, but after a broken nose or two, when he claims he can walk through walls, he will take the doorway, explain that it is much easier. When our pain from wind power generation is too high, we will quit. (Who will clean up the mess?) Likewise, the large solar installations. Inevitably, we will power our lives with nuclear generated electricity.

Coal is a finite resource, and it is environmentally burdensome, even with modern technology. We will wean ourselves off it, even China and India, long before we run out of it. though. The net benefits from coal are too low to justify using it when we have better alternatives like natural gas and nuclear fission.

Natural gas may be finite. (Well, it is eventually, but odds are we will be extracting it from the earth even a few centuries from now.) Natural gas has substantive net benefit, but it is still somewhat burdensome on the environment, and nuclear fission is far better. We will be using natural gas for many generations to come, but we will see it specialized into small niches. It will become inconsequential to our earthly environment.

Petroleum, well, we are probably going to use it for as long as we have machines. We are probably going to have machines for hundreds, maybe thousands, of generations. Of course, we could have paradigm-shifting technological advances that make it easier to make what hydrocarbons we use more inexpensively with nuclear-generated electricity than by continued mining (drilling, fracking, and other modern extraction techniques, which I think of as mining). {“If it can’t be grown, it must be mined,” is a truth-statement today.} Also, it doesn’t actually seem likely petroleum is a finite resource. That is, for practical purposes, it may be as plentiful as rock. It is reasonable to suppose we will never run out of oil in the earth’s crust. We are not sure, but there are theories that we can’t test significantly yet. Regardless, the extractable oil is more than enough to remain useful for generations to come. We are just as far from peak-oil as we’ve ever been, and every time prognosticators start doomcasting we blow right past their deadlines.

For generating large amounts of stable electrical energy, coal is the most sensible from the engineering standpoint, but the other burdens of its extraction, use, and disposal are too significant. Natural gas is only sensible because we can get so much of it so inexpensively. That situation will not hold indefinitely, but I suspect it will hold for the rest of my generation (let’s assume 40 years). Natural gas is relatively clean, and direct use of it is exceptionally beneficial in terms of benefits to our lives versus the burdens of extraction and use. It takes three times more natural gas to boil your tea kettle with an electric stove top (assuming natural-gas turbine generated electricity) than it does with a direct natural gas stove top. It is quite counterproductive from any standpoint to restrict or ban the use of natural gas in residential or commercial or even industrial use. Natural gas is first choice for direct fuel applications. One could argue for liquid fuels, but it is much harder to deal with liquid fuels in open-flame applications.

Petroleum is not a good fuel for large electrical power generation, which is why we use it for only a small fraction of a percent of our total electrical generation. It is good for small applications, and quick-start applications, but not much otherwise.

We need petroleum for mobile fuel. Liquids are easily stored in tanks for direct transportation usage. It is probably indispensable for aircraft, at least medium- and long-distance flights. It is good with ground transport, but there are several advantages to electrically powered transportation, but the limits of batteries are prohibitive, and will be for the near future. Edison advanced battery technology more than anyone before him, and advancements since have been at a snail’s pace with the significant, but small, advancement of lithium batteries. It looks like 15 to 25 years will bet us that much ahead again. That will give us batteries about twice as good as Edison could make. We need batteries that are 50 times better.

We have a variety of reasonable engineering solutions, but none that will be easy or inexpensive, and some would require significant changes in our societies. We shall see.

Another aside: If we can prove out fully automated transportation, we may switch to all electric vehicles, including short-flight aircraft, by switching to an entirely automated transportation system that would incorporate plains, trains, automobiles, and trucks scheduled to maximize battery life and transportation efficiencies. If so, personal ownership of vehicles would probably be relegated to hobbyists, and we’d generally just tap our phone app to have our ride pull up for us in a matter seconds, zipping us without traffic snarls to our destinations (with, perhaps, stops to transfer to a second transport with fresh batteries if our distance requires).

As an engineer with expertise in physics, I have no reservations asserting we will burn all we need to until we have excess electricity generated from nuclear power sources. Windmills will run their course, and our descendants will curse us for the hardships caused by them. Large-scale solar will be the same, but some solar applications may prove out, but solar power generation will never supply a significant fraction of our overall energy usage.

We will switch to nuclear. It is the only reasonable possibility. There may be some genius-level technological breakthrough, but there is no evidence to support such speculation, and it may be centuries from now even if it is possible.

We will use nuclear fission with uranium and thorium for generations, and we will eventually solve the engineering challenges of nuclear fusion and the materials required to build power production facilities. That might be a century or two (or a couple decades, but my money is on 100 years).

There is no existential threat other than the unknown. There is a plant-killing rock out there, but it may not approach for several centuries. (Of course, if we spot it tomorrow and realize it will hit us in 15 years, we’re probably going to join the dinosaurs and the other 99.9% of species how’ve run their course on our planet. I bet a few survive, or some new species will eventually attain what we call sentience, and life will continue to find a way, at least until the next unknown catastrophic event overtakes them.)

We will burn fossil fuels until nuclear power generation makes it impractical. We will not tip earth’s climate into anything catastrophic for humans or the rest of life on this planet.

Do keep in mind that there are three essential ingredients to life on our planet, water, oxygen, and carbon dioxide. The first two are demonstrably the most destructive aspects of our environment. As long as oceans remain, water and oxygen will remain the most significant drivers of maintenance and repair and rebuilding. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is an essential ingredient to life. It cannot exist in nature in quantities that are dangerous to us or other life. Even corals have experienced carbon dioxide levels multiples higher than our current levels. CO2 is only dangerous on our planet in its absence. We must have it, or photosynthesis is impossible. If carbon dioxide gets too low, all plants will die and all remaining life will starve, all of it (well, fungus might manage).

So, are you willing to acknowledge that nuclear is best? If not, you will relegate the next generation to undue suffering, and they will.

We will switch to entirely nuclear-power generated electricity. It is only a matter of time and how much suffering it takes to overcome our irrational fears of it.

Environmentalism, notionally, is trying to solve problems. The air was dirty. We solved that. Water was dirty. We solved that. Problems got more esoteric and ill defined with problems like acid rain and CFCs, but we seemingly solved those purported problems. The key was intractability. The environmentalists and those who saw the movement as a means to power needed an unsolvable problem. Telling humans their use of energy is the problem provides an unsolvable problem. Thus was born the notion of carbon dioxide causing climate change. The eternal problem for the unending alarm. There is your politics. There is your will to power. That is why climate alarmism will still be a thing generations from now when the world moves along in spite of it.

I’ve paid attention to climate change my whole life. In my youth, it was pollution, soot and sulfur compounds, etc., that were causing, not only dirty, unhealthy living conditions, but coming ice sheets as our current ice age deepened and the glaciers reasserted over most of the northern hemisphere. Later, that fear morphed into global warming, now, just change. Of course, change is the only constant, and we hear most everything blamed on this supposedly alarming change in the undefined and undefinable climate.

Trying to keep things simple, I take advantage of the fact we humans are inherently religious. No matter what we are talking about, we frame it in a religious framework. Currently, the high priests, the bishops, and the popes, like Algore, tell us we are sinning by burning things, especially in our motor vehicles, and by eating (which is still burning). The alarmist religious leaders pretend we can be absolved if we drive unsafe tiny cars (and drive less) and if we eat unhealthy foods (meaning only plants grown in manure).

Of course, there are bigger sins, like coal, but that is a slow-motion effort that mostly hurts people directly involved in coal, and less coal does amount to less pollution to deal with for the rest of us.

Since essentially all of us are unwilling to repent of our sinful ways, the powers that be preach that “god” (Gaia, in this case) is punishing us with weather. All of what we used to call weather (which we admitted everyone talked about, but no one could do anything about) is now hailed as proof that we sinners must repent and stop burning anything and stop eating anything.

Again, we humans are going to continue eating. As we grow wealthier (in the developing nations) we will eat more meat. We will burn more fuel. That is the fact. It isn’t going to change. We will consume more and more energy (food is simply our tasty form of energy). It is inexorable. If you oppose it, you espouse death and slavery. Harsh? Not at all. The internalization of the fact that every individual has independent intrinsic value and the fact of the industrial revolution, specifically the burning of fossil fuels in productive industry, have been the significant factors in the reductions of slavery and death and abject poverty in the world.

I think that worth emphasizing: Understanding the worth of every individual as an independent good and the burning of fossil fuels are why things are better now than they were a century ago. We can step that back by century, still seeing progress for a few, but the same cannot be said of a couple millennia ago. Specifically, at that time, only the powerful were valued. All wealth was merely the effective use of enslavement. Life was dirty, brutish, and short unless you were powerful enough to use slaves. Restricting the use of energy, even fossil fuels, is turning to slavery and impoverishment.

The big picture is that energy is the single most important factor to the flourishing of humanity as a whole. Energy causally correlates to societal wellbeing.

Deficient engineers and bad politicians devised means of producing power without directly burning fossil fuels. These so-called renewables meet our religious need of blood sacrifice. These sacrificial altars kill insects by the millions, bats by the thousands, and rare birds by the hundreds continuously. These sacrificial altars provide us self-flagellation as well, at least for those forced to live within proximity. Eventually, the harm caused by renewables will be so self-evident that the religious leaders of environmentalism will turn the tables, and these will be the new sin. (Over and over for over 3,000 years, we have abandoned windmills. We will this time, too, and someone will have to clean up the mess.)

It cannot be over emphasized that the ready availability of energy as inexpensive, reliable electricity and fuel, is the essential requirement for a flourishing human society. It is globally and locally true. We must have more and more reliable energy availability. The alternative is death and slavery. It is harsh, but those are the cold equations (reference Tom Godwin).

Much of what we humans do is not life or death. Energy is.

Such notions as the “green new deal” deny reality and physics.

Such notions as socialism deny reality and human nature.

To deny reality is to invite death.

Is climate changing? Yes. It always has. It always will.

Is climate changing because of our consumption and burning? Is it because of the new sins of the new environmentalist religion? I can’t see that it matters. Climate has changed far more in the distant past than it can in the near future. I don’t think we can define climate in the near-term. I think climate must be defined over several generations. It isn’t useful to define climate in terms less than several centuries. Too many other factors affect all we are considering when looking at averages of various factors of weather.

I assert we are in no danger societally from any pending climate change. Our sins of burning are not going to kill us, and Gaia simply doesn’t care. Climate and earth will not kill us. (That big rock coming our way might, but we can’t say much about when.)

Teach your children the historical fact that fear and alarmism have never accomplished anything good and usually result in grave harm.

Bottom line: We must have more energy. It must be more readily available to all, and it must be reliable.

There is a clear and proven way to make more energy available in an environmentally responsible way, nuclear.

Nuclear fission power production is our only long-term option.

Repeating the bottom line: We must have more energy, and nuclear is the only realistic way to do it.

Ever heard that water is an incompressible fluid? Well, that is an approximation, and it is reasonable in freshman physics classes.

However, water compresses plenty. All matter will compress. An increase in pressure on the matter will compress it. This compression is work. This work is lost (used up) and unavailable for other purposes. The work typically heats the material, increasing its temperature.

I don’t know about you, but I’ve had many arguments about this bit of oversimplification throughout my years. It is one of those situations where a little knowledge (an inadequate amount of knowledge) is dangerous. Fortunately, it is only the kind of danger that is annoying, not destructive.

My point is when we consider a hydraulic system, we generalize and simplify, and we say that a force acting on the water or hydraulic fluid within an enclosed system will act on all surfaces equally. Yes, kinda. Nature will not let you get away with the approximation.

Applying 1 pound-force on 10 in2 allows us to calculate 10 pound-force on a 1-in2 ram, but not all the 10 pounds-force is actually there on the ram. Some of it was lost in work compressing the fluid, and some more was lost in friction acting on the liquid moving through the ram channel to push against the 1-in2 ram.

Accountants make up all kinds of formulas and rules. Each has its purpose and use, and some are limited and not usable in all situations. No amount of accounting can eliminate cost incurred. Obfuscating it somewhere other than final price is sleight of hand.

When a petroleum company incurs cost, such as gross production or severance tax, and every other tax they incur, the petroleum company must account the cost, and somewhere, they must pay it. Revenues must be higher than costs, or the company goes bankrupt (and all the employees become unemployed). Sooner or later, in all circumstances, increasing costs, even gross production taxes, increase the price the petroleum company must charge in sales or fees.

Refiners will pay more. In turn, they must cover the costs with revenues, and the end result is a rise in the price every poor sod pays to fill his vehicle so he can get to work and feed his family. If fuel costs increase, and his paycheck doesn’t, he will have less with which to feed his family.

Real life, be it accounting or physics, never lets us get away with anything. Everything has its costs. To do anything, one must expend time and energy. For anything to happen, time and energy are used up. (That is the purpose of the universe, to use up all time and all enthalpy.)

We all know these things when we pay attention. Pay attention. One can never be so poor as to be unable to pay attention.

In physics, if work is done, it is used up. We have to get energy from somewhere again to do more (or just to do it again). The same goes for money and costs. If we had to pay it, it is gone. We have to get money from somewhere else, or we fail. In the world we live in, you and I, the end consumers, pay that extra money. It doesn’t come from anywhere but us (in general, the business owner, even an oil baron, is one of us; not so the government; they don’t make money; they only take it). Everywhere (like a bank or the government) that has money got it from us. We paid. To the bank, we hope we get more (in interest or intangibles) than we put on deposit. With the government, we can only hope they don’t waste it all, and we live in fear they will only keep coming for more.

%d bloggers like this: