Save the worms

Any kind of animal suffering means huge emotional turmoil for me, more so than any suffering of humans.

I don't want to sound offensive but this is the kind of attitude I find incomprehensibly irrational. I find it hard to walk past beggers in the street. But animals, I take no pleasure in their suffering but to me that's usually just a good argument for ending their lives humanly.

I remember years ago I had a good idea for a hoax to set up a fake charity that asked for unwanted pets as donations so they could be turned into meat and sent to poor countries experiencing famine. I was thinking of calling it pet food. The entire point of the hoax being to make fun of the kind of animal lover who'll lavish vets and luxury food on a cat or dog but is happy for humans to starve.

Personally I feel like banning animal charity adverts on TV. At least till human hunger and disease is eradicated.

Don’t worry, you don’t sound offensive to me. In fact it’s this kind of superiority that humans have over any other living creature that is the main reason I favour animals over humans. Humans are the ones that have f&£:3d the planet up and constantly put species in danger of dying out. Yet we’re supposed to be the more intelligent ones… 

TBH it's because of this, conscience, or soul or what ever you want to call it that I think individual human life has value where animals don't. No monkey ever worried that it was damaging the forest. Or cried it self to sleep for cannibalising a baby monkey in time of famine. That human beings are developed enough to have things like a sense of guilt, even existential guilt, is what sets us apart from the animals.

Or the way mordin put is https://youtu.be/P-Kko6P5B_4

I'm skeptical about "experts" trading on their competence in one area to back up their arguments in another. He's a linguist not a military strategist. Anyway when it comes to science ... and even more so politics, my approach is 'nullius in verba' which roughly translated is 'I don't care who said it.' If an argument needs to be propped up by a reputation its not much of an argument.

As for nuclear winter my understanding is recent projections suggest this 'winter' might only role temperatures back to pre global warming levels. Thats assuming the loss of around 100 major cities on earth. If tomorrow north korea nuked seoul and tokyo and America nuked pyongyang the global climate would not noticeably change. Don't get me wrong millions would die but even the nations involved wouldn't vanish.

Obviously if you're on the Right you may not like him.   I'm a fan though.

Noam Chomsky is regarded as the worlds most foremost intellectual.

By whom? Is the a committee I can apply to for that post 

Noam Chomsky is regarded as the worlds most foremost intellectual.  And he says the Nuclear Threat is one of two key challenges for humans.  And both challenges threaten human survival on earth.

Some humans may survive it.  But huge numbers would not.  Human civilization depends on farming and agriculture.  Agriculture also depends on crop pollination. Which is why saving the Bee's is so important.  No Bee's, no humans.

I Sperg said:

AND unlike patriot, their anti ballistic missiles systems are quite effective.

and only deployed around Moscow.

Very recently, I was reading that the Russians have just completed a program of sending a large portion of their "boomers" (nuclear strike equipped submarines) at full speed to literally and overtly surround the United States, before they dived out of sight...

About a year ago they went onto full combat alert, (we are still only at Defcon 3 overall and Defcon2 in Europe, Africa (for some reason) and the middle east, last time I looked) and moved a portion of their mobile attack force a few hundred miles westwards.

They've recently fielded a slew of new missiles (since about 2018) that are way better than the missiles that our counter measures were made for, including some real novel stuff like their Poseidon and Khibinyhy systems (not sure I got the spelling right there) AND unlike patriot, their anti ballistic missiles systems are quite effective. 

I remain astounded that there aren't street protests going on right now about Britain's conduct in this matter.

I can only hope that my astonishment is an artifact of my Autism, and not a valid response to a real shared lack of interest out there in all of your own survival, as it would appear to me.. 

That’s only if it’s a global nuclear conflict. Nato vs Soviet Union type stuff. And we’ve had supper long winters in the recent past which humanity and civilisation survived.

I read somewhere that just one nuclear conflict, would bring about a nuclear winter, that would fundamentally alter the atmosphere of the planet.

The unpleasant truth about nuclear war is proliferation may be making the world safer. In the old deterrence model if one mad general launched a nuke the first world (nato) and second world (Soviet Union and maybe China) would nuke each other out of existence leaving only africa, South America and parts of the Near East untouched. The reality is once most nations have nukes big military alliances like nato will fall apart. Small countries won’t need to look to big ones for security when they’ve got nukes. And then inevitably some mad general will launch a nuke only it won’t be half the world that gets obliterated just two nations, possibly quite small unstable  ones. And then when having a nukes is no longer the mark of a super power, and the world has seen an entire nation or two turned to ash, multi lateral disarmament with probably start to get serious traction.

I Sperg said:

From my perspective, you got off your behind and took action to try an increase your perceived odds of survival. That gets my maximum respect.

Thank you.

Thank you also for some information I didn't know (or at least remember), especially this:

I Sperg said:

BUT. Them Greenham Common women (undoubtedly encouraged or helped in some way by the materials you were helping to produce, forced the US to scrap an entire nuclear system (The MX missile) which led to a specific treaty that made the world a whole lot lot safer until last year.   

From my perspective, you got off your behind and took action to try an increase your perceived odds of survival. That gets my maximum respect.

What you might not know, is that your actions along with others and the greenham common women achieved solid (but definitely unacknowledged!) results.

To be fairer to me, I was undiagnosed Autistic just escaped a full on abusive family life and very, very self absorbed, trying to unfuck myself and find a place in the world and manage to run a nice flat whilst on the dole, so I had my hands full.

From a "nuclear perspective" the U.K. has, ever since we retired the V bombers when I was a kid, relied on our submarine deterrent. What is not generally known is that the missiles were supplied at a very good rate by the U.S. on condition that THEY can veto the use of those missiles, by technical means if they so choose, thus at a stroke, ending Britains claim to an independent Nuclear deterrent! 

In short, instead of being a sovereign nuclear power, we became a "hanger on" to one of the larger nuclear forces whilst publically pretending (to the point of national level mendacity) otherwise.

NOW. That'll be news to a lot of you, and many won't believe me, but I've studied nuclear war and maintained a plan to detect the onset of it in time to escape, or take adequate shelter since the 90's. We always have been "vulnerable" since WW2, when we bankrupted our nation.

BUT. Them Greenham Common women (undoubtedly encouraged or helped in some way by the materials you were helping to produce, forced the US to scrap an entire nuclear system (The MX missile) which led to a specific treaty that made the world a whole lot lot safer until last year.   

I Sperg said:

I just feel its hideous that along with us, so many animals, insects and other lifeforms will suffer MASSIVE injury for which they have no culpability whatsoever unlike myself who SHOULD have supported the greenham women, and SHOULD have protested, but didn't..  

That's an interesting comment.

I feel the reverse.

I was a member of CND, went to talks (including Monsignor Bruce Kent), went on marches, typed the local newsletter **.

However, now I feel I was naive/idealistic.

Although I always believed in mulitilateral disarmament rather than unilateral, where would we be now without our deterrent?

I'm not sure we would have been able to support Ukraine and we would all be living in fear of our lives (even more than we are now).

I don't think the US or Russia etc would ever have disarmed, so we would have been left vulnerable, as Ukraine was historically.

________________________________________________________________________________

** I typed this for a printing machine that was already an old style printer at the time. 

Mimeograph.  This would be around 1987/8.

I used a special paper and my manual typewriter made stencils of the letters to print.

If I made a mistake I had to go over it with a special liquid that created a seal again to break with the correct letter.

The liquid took ages for it to dry.

It was a nightmare and I did this at night after a full time job and a second job.

It's going to lose an awful lot of it to "deadhand" if we "oh so valuable" humans don't stop the ongoing evil game of death that is growing daily between the three major nuclear powers.

Humans might yet leave this planet recovering from a major eco-catastophe, ready for a more sensible lifeform to assume supremacy.

But yours and my attention is being focussed on carbon credits, based on what some qualified folk claim is dubious science, rather than the immediate threat of nuclear annhilation,which is arising because we are led by such egregrious liars, that the russians refuse to believe anything we might say!! 

I just feel its hideous that along with us, so many animals, insects and other lifeforms will suffer MASSIVE injury for which they have no culpability whatsoever unlike myself who SHOULD have supported the greenham women, and SHOULD have protested, but didn't..  

It's going to lose an awful lot of it to "deadhand" if we "oh so valuable" humans don't stop the ongoing evil game of death that is growing daily between the three major nuclear powers.

Humans might yet leave this planet recovering from a major eco-catastophe, ready for a more sensible lifeform to assume supremacy.

But yours and my attention is being focussed on carbon credits, based on what some qualified folk claim is dubious science, rather than the immediate threat of nuclear annhilation,which is arising because we are led by such egregrious liars, that the russians refuse to believe anything we might say!! 

I just feel its hideous that along with us, so many animals, insects and other lifeforms will suffer MASSIVE injury for which they have no culpability whatsoever unlike myself who SHOULD have supported the greenham women, and SHOULD have protested, but didn't..  

I'm skeptical about "experts" trading on their competence in one area to back up their arguments in another. He's a linguist not a military strategist. Anyway when it comes to science ... and even more so politics, my approach is 'nullius in verba' which roughly translated is 'I don't care who said it.' If an argument needs to be propped up by a reputation its not much of an argument.

As for nuclear winter my understanding is recent projections suggest this 'winter' might only role temperatures back to pre global warming levels. Thats assuming the loss of around 100 major cities on earth. If tomorrow north korea nuked seoul and tokyo and America nuked pyongyang the global climate would not noticeably change. Don't get me wrong millions would die but even the nations involved wouldn't vanish.

Obviously if you're on the Right you may not like him.   I'm a fan though.

Noam Chomsky is regarded as the worlds most foremost intellectual.

By whom? Is the a committee I can apply to for that post 

Noam Chomsky is regarded as the worlds most foremost intellectual.  And he says the Nuclear Threat is one of two key challenges for humans.  And both challenges threaten human survival on earth.

Some humans may survive it.  But huge numbers would not.  Human civilization depends on farming and agriculture.  Agriculture also depends on crop pollination. Which is why saving the Bee's is so important.  No Bee's, no humans.

I Sperg said:

AND unlike patriot, their anti ballistic missiles systems are quite effective.

and only deployed around Moscow.

Very recently, I was reading that the Russians have just completed a program of sending a large portion of their "boomers" (nuclear strike equipped submarines) at full speed to literally and overtly surround the United States, before they dived out of sight...

About a year ago they went onto full combat alert, (we are still only at Defcon 3 overall and Defcon2 in Europe, Africa (for some reason) and the middle east, last time I looked) and moved a portion of their mobile attack force a few hundred miles westwards.

They've recently fielded a slew of new missiles (since about 2018) that are way better than the missiles that our counter measures were made for, including some real novel stuff like their Poseidon and Khibinyhy systems (not sure I got the spelling right there) AND unlike patriot, their anti ballistic missiles systems are quite effective. 

I remain astounded that there aren't street protests going on right now about Britain's conduct in this matter.

I can only hope that my astonishment is an artifact of my Autism, and not a valid response to a real shared lack of interest out there in all of your own survival, as it would appear to me.. 

That’s only if it’s a global nuclear conflict. Nato vs Soviet Union type stuff. And we’ve had supper long winters in the recent past which humanity and civilisation survived.

I read somewhere that just one nuclear conflict, would bring about a nuclear winter, that would fundamentally alter the atmosphere of the planet.

The unpleasant truth about nuclear war is proliferation may be making the world safer. In the old deterrence model if one mad general launched a nuke the first world (nato) and second world (Soviet Union and maybe China) would nuke each other out of existence leaving only africa, South America and parts of the Near East untouched. The reality is once most nations have nukes big military alliances like nato will fall apart. Small countries won’t need to look to big ones for security when they’ve got nukes. And then inevitably some mad general will launch a nuke only it won’t be half the world that gets obliterated just two nations, possibly quite small unstable  ones. And then when having a nukes is no longer the mark of a super power, and the world has seen an entire nation or two turned to ash, multi lateral disarmament with probably start to get serious traction.

I Sperg said:

From my perspective, you got off your behind and took action to try an increase your perceived odds of survival. That gets my maximum respect.

Thank you.

Thank you also for some information I didn't know (or at least remember), especially this:

I Sperg said:

BUT. Them Greenham Common women (undoubtedly encouraged or helped in some way by the materials you were helping to produce, forced the US to scrap an entire nuclear system (The MX missile) which led to a specific treaty that made the world a whole lot lot safer until last year.   

From my perspective, you got off your behind and took action to try an increase your perceived odds of survival. That gets my maximum respect.

What you might not know, is that your actions along with others and the greenham common women achieved solid (but definitely unacknowledged!) results.

To be fairer to me, I was undiagnosed Autistic just escaped a full on abusive family life and very, very self absorbed, trying to unfuck myself and find a place in the world and manage to run a nice flat whilst on the dole, so I had my hands full.

From a "nuclear perspective" the U.K. has, ever since we retired the V bombers when I was a kid, relied on our submarine deterrent. What is not generally known is that the missiles were supplied at a very good rate by the U.S. on condition that THEY can veto the use of those missiles, by technical means if they so choose, thus at a stroke, ending Britains claim to an independent Nuclear deterrent! 

In short, instead of being a sovereign nuclear power, we became a "hanger on" to one of the larger nuclear forces whilst publically pretending (to the point of national level mendacity) otherwise.

NOW. That'll be news to a lot of you, and many won't believe me, but I've studied nuclear war and maintained a plan to detect the onset of it in time to escape, or take adequate shelter since the 90's. We always have been "vulnerable" since WW2, when we bankrupted our nation.

BUT. Them Greenham Common women (undoubtedly encouraged or helped in some way by the materials you were helping to produce, forced the US to scrap an entire nuclear system (The MX missile) which led to a specific treaty that made the world a whole lot lot safer until last year.   

I Sperg said:

I just feel its hideous that along with us, so many animals, insects and other lifeforms will suffer MASSIVE injury for which they have no culpability whatsoever unlike myself who SHOULD have supported the greenham women, and SHOULD have protested, but didn't..  

That's an interesting comment.

I feel the reverse.

I was a member of CND, went to talks (including Monsignor Bruce Kent), went on marches, typed the local newsletter **.

However, now I feel I was naive/idealistic.

Although I always believed in mulitilateral disarmament rather than unilateral, where would we be now without our deterrent?

I'm not sure we would have been able to support Ukraine and we would all be living in fear of our lives (even more than we are now).

I don't think the US or Russia etc would ever have disarmed, so we would have been left vulnerable, as Ukraine was historically.

________________________________________________________________________________

** I typed this for a printing machine that was already an old style printer at the time. 

Mimeograph.  This would be around 1987/8.

I used a special paper and my manual typewriter made stencils of the letters to print.

If I made a mistake I had to go over it with a special liquid that created a seal again to break with the correct letter.

The liquid took ages for it to dry.

It was a nightmare and I did this at night after a full time job and a second job.