The Fate of Women in an Unorderly Energy Transition

Our economy does not want to transition to renewables. Its members, the banks and the fossil industry are fighting hard to slow down us closing down the last oil and gas well. They propose ways to waste renewables, by making Hydrogen (wastes 70%) and want to rebrand unrenewable and bank friendly energy types like gas and nuclear as part of the ‘green’ energy basket.

This concerted effort to delay the growth of renewables is increasing the risk of an unorderly transition. One in which war and famine and chaos are going to happen. Without good energy sources we all basically live in a fossil poor Balkan or Middle East state because all the wealth we have in the most developed countries comes from using the vast fossil energy reserves we managed to control.

Women are now often the people advocating for a fast transition. Greta Thunberg worries about the long term effects which are horrendous. Other parties have similar concerns. The dishonest claim of (allways pro fossil) right wing parties that they stand for economic growth is clear if you realize we can grow to 2500 times our current world economy on renewables, not on fossil fuels. The Left is near dead because it can’t reconcile its capture in the fossil economy with its desire to replace it with a renewables based one (“I want a job, but not one it this economy!”).

Women are prominent on every side of the fossil debate, but it seems there is a silent majority that does not like the idea of a transition or that has not really thought about the risks. We don’t have to mention all the women that want to parade Prada bags and their sycophants. This is not a generalization. You have other women that just want to take care of their families in the harsh environment banks create for everyone. There are many trying to reach some kind of station in the economy, which can cost them their conscience because they have to sell out to fossil interests. Very few women are left to do the right thing or drive the debate to where it needs to be “Why are we on this fossil ration and how do we safely transition?”

The risks are significant. Women are unsafe because crime is opportunistic, so we all behave nicely because we can’t get away with being assholes. Parts of society where less attention is given to how people behave are consequently more chaotic and dangerous. A good example of what would happen if fossil resources where suddenly cut of right now is Afganistan, where the men are indoctrinated not to empthize to much with women to begin with. Families sell daughters for food. Women are forced into temporary ‘marriages’ for protection or food. It’s turned from a place where women aspire to get educated to a hellhole in a few months time.

All the men in the West with SUVs and big homes and nice holidays are worth shit if the fossil energy flow stops. Then they turn out to be pretty useless, all the devices stop working, all the safety is gone even if they already choose to live in a gate community. Energy keeps us all safe and this is not being discussed at all, not even by women!

The recent gas shortages where a shock, and measures where taken (a deal that may have pitted Germany against Russia in order for Germany to gain Gas from the US (with Holland as a stepping stone)), but there is an end to the flexibility of the system. In the shadow of this calamity energy companies seemed to have upped checking the useage of gas, so they visited people at home to take a reading. Some women reported the person reading the meter came on to them. No proof of any wrong doing can be given but in an economy where banks put everyone on the edge a reading that cuts your gas bill by 1000,- Euro can be a nice gesture.

Consider the above an imaginary scenario, but I once saw a french movie (where else) about a woman that had to sleep with the owner of the camping she lived in order to get a new tank of gas. I guess it is clear where I am going. Women are not safe in an unordely transition to renewables. This should be a topic because that means many people, women and men, will want to hang on to the security of fossil fuel dominance (which the shortages showed to be pretty feeble). This makes sense but it can’t mean the fossil banking system does not force a rapid transition for society to be secured. But this is something they are openly fighting against.

So where are the men and women to point this danger out (besides me)?

P.S. Fossil/banking interests will allow society to deteriorate because they can always serve the elite. In fact they need a suffering group of people to scare the rest to stay in their system. They would be fine with women being abused, but you would not be allowed to empathizes with them. The revolutionary act for women is to fully accept the value of their intimacy and the right to choose how to use it, and to not try to define a norm where transactions of intimacy are looked down upon.


Splitting the Economy

The world economy does not like renewable energy, it does not understand it. The problem is that renewables can be owned by you and me or local companies or municipalities. This means the energy can used to do stuff, but no money needs to change hands. This in turn leads to banks losing control over their economy. I say ‘their’ because it is a fact that the world economy is created by banks, run by banks, protected by banks, all in service of banks.

Banks fight the dying of their light, which was their role in distributing and allocating fossil fuels. Renewables will mostly be generated where they are needed. The proponents of more grid are trying to make it so energy can come from far away, once again requiring the use of money to trade it, but smart people will reject the creation of a long distance energy market as a waste of prescious time to fight climate change.

There is little hope for many countries though, as the political system seems to reject anyone who does not first look at economistic interests (meaning the security of banks). If you don’t you just don’t get elected, you are not taken seriously. Even if you do you still use the same money as everybody else, you can not differentiate that you want to use renewables to do what you want to do. This also means that banks can lend to competitors of renewables, directly or by lobbying governments, while not lending to people who drive growth of renewables or their supporters.

The best way to solve this problem is to split the economy in two : A fossil/nuclear one and a renewable powered one. I wrote about a way before, which would be to create a separate currency the Joule (renewable) vs the Euro for fossil/nuclear. A third currency would be for labour (the Auro) but this may be unnecessary seeing the speed of automation and development of AI.

Why would you create a Joule economy next to a Euro economy? The reason is that in the Joule economy products and services payed with Joules are priced vs the availability of renewable energy (either directly or stored in batteries). The emission of Joules into the (what I call) is different from a bank writing out a loan (after having concluded all the money+interest will be retured eventually), which is quite simple and introduces many risks (inflation, delflation, bubbels etc.). Instead the amount of Joules will be given to the owner of the renewable energy source, based on the analysis of what will be done with it. At the same time part will be ‘taxed’ and given to the people living close to the renewable energy source. This means the government manages this allocation of Joules. It can not just create them, because the capacity of renewable energy sources is hard limited.

Unlike with fossil credit (Euro,USD etc.) there is no global competition for who can get the most and produce the most, which for example causes a lot of oil to go into China now that used to go into the US manufacturing base. Instead every region has locally allocated Joules and get distributed Joules as a basic income. The people in the region must use the Joules to make stuff to serve their needs. The products can be bought with Joules, so the Joules can be used to produce them, mine the raw materials, transport what is needed to where it is needed by the producers.

In a Joule based economy the more renewable resources you have the better. But if you place a factory in the middle of the desert, say one that makes sneakers from synthetic molecules made in chemical processes powered by renewables, those sneakers have next to no real cost and no Joules payed from other regions will help produce it, because the energy those Joules represent is not available in the desert. This seems different from the situation with fossil fuels, but it is not, because say to produce a sneaker from oil in a factory in China, someone has to bring the oil to the plastic factory and then the plastic to the sneaker factory, at the cost of fuel. This logistic challenge associated with fossil us usually hidden from view, until the trucks go on strike or the ships get stuck in the Suez Canal.

The introduction of the Joule currency could happen by government initiated local renewable energy projects the currency is part of. The local governments can also invest, as can companies. The currency then gets distributed to the people involved as well as to the owners of the energy source (who get rewarded for their maintenance and intiative). It would make sense to start with essential services like bakeries, fertilizer factories, logistics companies, etc. These can then buy energy with the Joules allocated with them and earn Joules or other currencies with their products and services.

The economy would become split as banks would have nothing to do with the Joules, while the communities would enjoy basic products and services from their own Joule economy. This is like people in Spain not paying for gas in the winter, because the sun keeps them warm without it. The economies would never meet, but could if people wanted to replace their fossil credit Euros for Joules and owners of Joules would want to buy Euros, for instance for a plane ticket. As regions would not really compete but take care of themselves for most basic needs, there would be no ‘global market’, production of goods and services could however increase as more renewable energy capacity was build and these products could be shared with regions with energy shortages.

As you can see the Joule based Roboeconomy would be completely different from the fossil credit (Euro, Dollar etc. ) based ‘world economy’. The world economy could not sabotage the Joule economies because these would not want or need fossil credit or fossil fuels. They could exist side by side in the beginning, like we now have homes that require no energy between homes that still burn gas. This system can help us transtion without banks or fossil being an anchor dragging us back..

Bubble Psychology

We share our thoughts on social media, we gain followers and views, its all part of the online community life that has grown to impressive proportions. People barely talk to each other and are staring at their phones even when they are together. Its clear the phone offers a better experience than the companions. It may be a bit like the lure of money, the paper or number promises the world, more than actual items which depreciate.

The social communities have allowed a new type of reality, which existed earlier based on location and wealth. People like to separate out based on behaviour, so if you are poor and can’t behave as someone that likes to be served in expensive restaurants, you will become separated. Even if you are together you can separate based on whether you are polite, know the customs, your dress decisions, hair style, etc. etc. All these things define groups. IF you keep your home tidy, if you have a nice garden, if you bought the last newest lawnmower. If you had a steak from the Saltbae.

These groups are self sufficient and do not mix. They are bubbles. We choose them and it seems very simple : If you can behave the way you like to, and you can eat and drink and find shelter doing it, then you lose interest in alternatives. You close your bubble. You may remember a time that your situation was different and hold on to people, this means you can see friends from before you became poor or rich or moved or entered a club, your bubble is not hermetic, but its getting there.

Todays politics is all about bubbles. We have the old generaton with money, they need to be kept in their bubble, we have the old generation without money, they need to be kept in theirs. We have students, they need to be occupied with life and debt and challenges, we have working families, they need to be occupied with carrers. They don’t really know each other or help each other, except when its family, but family is so 20th century. The economy maximizes cashflow by creating and maintaining bubbles.

To exist economism needs a strong right wing mentality, one that says “I did it all by myself!” ignoring the effect of fossl energy you have not contributed to at all. Ironically you can only proof value by being helpfull to others, which is counter economism, as evident by the growing number of poor people it creates. The right wing bubble is to heterogeneous to be one bubble though, this is because you have people born rich, people making themselve rich, and people without money that think they should be or will be rich one day. So there’s the old conservative bubble “we rebuild this country”, the business owners (who sometimes get crushed by industry but have to be on the side of banks to maintain good relations), and the young crazies thinking they are Napoleon. The Right is often associated with a strong sense of ownership (leading to xenophobia), but that’s the other way around, a strong sense of ownership serves the banks who own almost everything.

On the Left there are several bubbles, but it doesn’t matter without power. The Left has not realized all it is is against banks and fossil, as soon as it is for banks and fossil it will find its ideas shift to the right. Yet nobody on the Left in Holland has ever explicitly said this. This means the Left doesn’t really exist (except for the Party of the Animals), it does not know what it needs to be to be a viable challenge to the ‘Right’.

At the left side you have bubbles based on socialism, environmentalism, anti-Right-ism (useless), sadly because banks own most homes, rented or bought, most businesses, most universities, everyone on the Left needs money and a steady income. If you serve banks you are on the Right. One move they should make would be to create their own bank, which can only give out renewable energy credit from sources owned by that bank.

The Left and Socialist bubbles are quite strong, these people don’t read much and are often highly social not able to separate themselves as the rich can. It is a mess though because no unifying principle. The religious bubbles are unaware of their right wing nature, they ignore the source of thier wealth, the nature of the production cycle it seems. They are so anxious to perform in their complex ideological bubble world they can be coopted by the Right without much problems.

If would be interesting to map out the beliefs of people in their respective bubbles, who is your primary news source, which people do you trust, are you a maker, a consumer, how much debt have you consumed? Showing the sometimes contradictory nature of the positions some groups take in politics and what would work for them. This field of Bubble psychology would be interesting to follow and give handles to pierce bubbles if the inhabitants are dangerous to others. We have Covid denier bubble, a climate denier bubble etc. Sadly banks don’t give a shit about climate change, and they like to confuse us by allowing any group that does not harm them. We in the mean time are stuck in our bubbles, thinking we can’t cooperate with others outside it. We can and we should.

Democracy is a Thought Process

Many countries claim to have a democracy and hopefully you live in one. The main tenet of the process is purportedly that you choose your own officials, which in a fair election allows you to prioritize certain ideas over others. Of course freedom, jobs, less taxes etc. are general ideas everyone will support every time, and this gets a lot of people elected. Lately a new brand of politician has arrived, which seems to be fully supported by niche beliefs which sometimes contradict. Patriots, fascists, racists, all kind of small groups can be identified and addressed through social media. Campaigns of others can be undermined.

But this is not what democracy was originally. Originally it was just people coming together in a town square to make group decisions, with voting deciding the outcome. Originally the vote of a previous day could also be overturned by the group. The advantage was that in a socially coherend city like Athens everyone knew the ideas and passions of others and a majority vote meant you knew you could shut up about an idea voted away.

Modern society is way more complex. Now we have extremely strong interests being defended, and there is so much knowledge to have about what goes on (about industry) that lobbyists, or advisors with industry knowledge are essential. But of course democracy was never meant to decide on what industry does. As a result most of what industry does is weighed against the idea of profit, financial gain. That standard is more powerfull than that of wellbeing of the population, because there is no group who can independently think and take a strong position for that, not even the medical sector (because it is also an industry).

The cult of personality allows people to have no actual thought process, vison or ideas, only a personality you like.

Banks and fossil are the strongest powers in society by far, and its clear they run dutch politics at least. They strongly push in EU politics as well, for nuclear and ‘green gas’. The dutch kabinet is no longer reliably supplying the parliament with information. The policy for the next 3 years has been set in stone in an untransparent process behind doors, without votes. The new kabinet of ministers is larger but has the same people in it that where send away because the tax office commited gross abuse by demanding money back from people without reason or recourse, destroying lives and possibly even killing people. Of course industry and banks are used to that, they don’t care about it, and this kabinet was 100% in their pockets under Rutte.

But as said earlier democracy was not meant to be this sideshow where politicans are more bussy seeking ways to make the public approve what industry wants then to represent subgroups of people shape laws for all people. The guidance to make improvements would be to state that democracy is a thought process. It is the nation thinking. It is the nation testing ideas. Some of this happens in politics, so for instance an idea is lauched by a minister (a testing balloon).

The way the thought process should work is that the public talk to local politicians about what they want, then these talk to other local politicians to see if they think the ideas make sense, then this gets lifted to the politicians in parliament and minsters who may decide to prioritize the ideas. This is not how it works. The right wing majority of dutch politics is anti democratic. They get their ideas from industry and banks, and of course there are many sycophants who want the favor of banks and industry around the country who simply take their cues and repeat the mantra’s (also found in books of the WEF or other right wing writers). Its about lying to keep the left intimidated and weak. Who works the hardest? Not the banker. Who cares the most? Not the industrialist. Who adds the most value? Not the CEO (usually) but of course the engineer, intern, PhD student. But no, these people work so hard! Of course you don’t have to work hard if you can influence politicians, which is what right wing politicians are for.

The media keep inviting right wing talkingheads so the thought process gets sabotaged because people allow their minds to be scripted based on the cult of personality based trust

Democracy tries to work as a thought process, but fails almost immediately between the citizen and the local councils. In the case of the Meta Datacenter near Zeewolde the local politicians agreed with the energy guzzling (climate unfriendly) project only to say it regretted it shortly after. In a real democracy that would mean the project once again would be blocked. It doesn’t seem that happened. In other places the anti-fossil Left simply stopped being parties in the council maybe because it no longer made any sense to always lose. The main reason for these phenomena is banks and the fossil industry.

It used ot be that you could earn a honest day’s work by working honestly for a day. That is no longer true, you can work and not earn enough to live, you can not work and earn plenty. You can live in a city and never see a plant or animal yet eat plants and animals every day. You can work an online job (many have to now) and just be detached from the entire rest of the planet. For years. This bubble society (post coming) is a real problem. We don’t need each other, we don’t see each other, we can’t help each other, we have no shared thought processes. Most public affairs are inaccessible because they are locked behind bureacracy and nobody gets rewarded to keep an eye on what really goes on.

To fix all this we need to lear how to facilitate the thought process again. We need to speak our minds in all cases, prioritized based on the effect on our community, not on our wallet. We may have to make the incomes of politicians hypertransparent. A fixed fee for speeches for example, no means to earn later for services rendered, no lobby jobs after your politicial term. Items on agendas must be brought in by the public (We had a prime minister that asked to cut Shells dividend tax, and no party ever asked for it, which shows you his fossil/banking puppet nature). A member of parliament has to speak about problems of real people that came in through the local and regional councils. It would be very easy for citizen to indicate with issues they thought where actually important to them (through the DigID environment).

It seems the current right wing paralysis of politics is entirely because of corruption. The false belief in economism as the way forward for the next decade is terrifying. The idea to allow 24 datacenters without also requiring explosive expansion of renewables seems to indicate a desire to burn US and Russian gas, which can only lead to more animosity which the EU being a stakeholder may suffer the effects from. We almost had a war (and may still have it) in Ukraine because of the idiotic desire to use fossil energy. That is without talking about how banks destroyed the home building industry, social housing and build up a large group of nitrogen polluting farms who’s owners have to face the possiblity of shut down. So much is going wrong all because of economists, WEF globalists. How many of those live in dutch cities? How did they get their agenda through their city councils? They didn’t.

The goal of the economistic Right is to screw up our idea of democracy so we have no place to start. The ranks being cleaned from lobbyists and people without actual constituents would be a good step.

like a dog on leash or a horse with a bustrens being controlled by a few persons our politics is run by politicians that listen to a few advisors. The mantra is simple : Make sure fossil energy is used, This will protect both the power of the fossil sector and that of the banks. The latter can trade anything for the fossil fuels, they create the money. So we get US gas, the US gets to buy some dutch companies, we get russian gas, Russia gets to buy some dutch companies. No doubt the Meta datacenter was pushed through to get gas from the US?

Because of climate change the above reads like everyone lost their mind in Holland. It proves really hard to increase right wing policing because people in Holland are so reasonable, in spite of the Right (without any citizen asking) to increase the pain by driving up home prices, reducing what can be rented etc. etc. The people with thoughts should help restart the thought process : No talk about topics nobody brought up (this is what eliminated Rutte’s dividend suggestion), and no politician that doesn’t have a reason for his ideas. Right wing politicians always expose their manequine nature because if you ask them anything about their position they just don’t know. Rutte famously said he doesn’t have a vision. He also said that he will break the law if it pleases him (let’s hope its nothing creepy he did). In a democracy thoughts trickle up (you could interpret the trickle down economy as one where thoughts are blocked from trickling up by money, so corruption institutionalized). And they can then be tested for their rationality and effect on others. Farmers can’t keep producing 7 times more meat than Holland needs. But what can other farmers do to reduce emissions? Etc. And anyone who can not defend his/her idea on its own merit or indicate its origin in facts or social impact has to simply abandon it.

Economism’s Dead End Street

We often forget how we got to today. Once there where no fossil fuels and no engines, not even steam engines. Everything ran on food or fodder and the occasional wind and water flows. The wealth people created came at a considerable effort, healthcare was weak and so was the social fabric of society. Banks had a simple job, keep money safe, hand out money to people that had good ideas how to use capital (money was NOT capital in those days) to produce wealth more efficiently. This all made a lot of sense.

Coal was discovered, the steam engine invented, the lathe to work metal and produce precise copies of mechanisms. Suddenly we could produce more wealth than before, limited this time by the number of steam engines and of course the job of hauling coal to where the steam engines where (but that was solved by steam trains). Suddenly heavy loads could be moved over enormous distances, steel could be mined and worked to build more machines that ran on coal steam.

In this frenzy of development banks learned a quick lesson : You can create money, that money buys coal, that coal creates products, which neutralizes the inflation your money represents. The money ends up with the coal producers, who have no reason to spend it. More wealth going around meant more need for money. But the limit was the value of gold and silver, the currencies where backed by those metals. That represented a restriction on money creation, a restriction that had to be removed.

When oil came along in the eary 1900s and the diesel engine was used (originally invented to run on vegetable oil) the same dynamic got hold on the world, of course the countries that quickly armed themselves with diesel warships could put a lid on other countries trying to get to the new found black gold. The banks saw the same process playing out, but this time on a ridiculous scale. More engines meant more use of oil, meant more wealth creation, comfort and ‘progress’. The correct word however is ‘modernity’ which is the needless replacement of old habits to accomodate for the oil ‘pressure’. The fossil-economy and the mentality of economism was born.

What is economism according to me? It is the idea that you finance the use of fossil fuel (enable, because the money you create is worthless if you -can not- buy fossil fuels with it). This then allows for the purchase of engines, to produce wealth, new products etc.

  • If this is a succes then this means more fossil fuel use, more cashflow
  • If it is a failure there was initial fossil fuel use and cashflow
  • The winners can be rewarded and the losers punished through the use of debt
  • The whole system is backed by the armies who would not be able to fight modern wars without fossil fuels

The above system serves the fossil fuel industry and the banks. It is build into the economic theory. It is a game. All players that should not produce must be in debt, all producers that fail will become non-producers, and of course anyone who wants to try to become producers can, banks and fossil ALWAYS win. If you do well as a player you are welcome at the WEF.

The above ‘game’ has had a lot of benefits for many in the world. No doubt. But it also has meant there was constant ‘pressure’ to burn more fossil fuels, which would be called economic develoment and growth. This in turn caused and is till causing massive emissions, and this is why this game is a problem.

Now there is talk of a Great Reset, which is really not a reset at all, according to Wikipedia it denotes an industrial revolution based on most recent innovations in the fields of AI, Quantum computing, nano technology. The WEF and Klaus Schwab do not want to end the fossil/banking game, they see no harm in it maybe, but of course no matter how much Quantum computation and Nano technology you use, you’re not going to develop enough renewable energy sources as long as the economistic game is not pointed out and worked around.

Now to create renewable energy sources we still need to use a lot of fossil energy. This means the players of the economistic game have to agree with the transition, and they DONT. This is clearly demonstrated by Manchin’s behaviour vs. the Build Back Better act in the US. He is a fossil lobby controlled republican pretending to be a democrat. There are many such shills on the political left : Why not after all, you can steer you leftist friends towards economism and feel good about yourself. Some more hardline economists are on the right. The whole political spectrum, at least that part with power, is pro economism, because it has a tight grip over so many lives.

It is clear though that expanding fossil use and/or replacing fossil use from coal to gas or from gas to hydrogen (made with gas) are all variations of the same game described above. So many people are involved that only think in terms of money that this system has reached high rigidity.

The added difficulty is that armies are dependent on fossil fuels, and thus the availability of them is a national security issue, and although nuclear can replace fossil in ships and submarines, on land there’s no clear alternative (small reactors have been proposed). Earlier I concluded that armies are also there mainly to secure fossil, so if the world would switch to renewables the need for wars would deminish. Facing climate change you would think war would be lowest on the agenda, but for people trying to keep a fossil game going they are they put it the highest. Its a fatalist game but players think they will be able to escape the negative effects and they don’t care what happens after. It is a dead end mentality run by sadists who hope to get away in time.

What is the alternative? Renewables of course, but those can be anywhere, and are not easily controlled and limited by banks. In fact, banks are going to lose all control, their entire franchise in a world without fossil fuel. Only forced cartels or restrictions can build a new hierarchy as we have today. The big obstacle to the alternative of economism is of course economism, you are asking to use fossil fuels to exit from fossil fuels! This is why there needs to start a shadow ‘Roboeconomy’ networking renewable producers and users outside the influence of the global economy. This sounds impossible but it is not. You can have solar fields in france feeding into a rail based battery system that then drives to Rotterdam to deliver its energy. You can have private grids to carry wind power on shore. But most importantly you can have many small energy producers that deliver to local manufacturers. This concept is of course fought at every level by the same powers that thrive in the economistic game.

In another post (which got lost during an update of WP) I pleaded for a new currency, the Joule. This should be a currency next to the Euro, with quite specific rules that localize its value. Batteries are literally energy banks and can do much to level out value differences in combination with the grid and other energy transportation solutions. Hydrogen is out of the question because you lose 70% of your input, which means you build 70% of your renewable energy sources for nothing. That makes them 3 times more expensive, and causes a lot of emissions you are trying to avoid.

Will find the post and insert a link here. The website is


Do we live in a simulation? Elon Musk thinks the chance is reasonable. His argument is that as our games today are approaching uncanny photorealism, with physics engines and stuff behaving as if it was the real world, how can we tell an earlier intelligence has not designed a huge gaming rig and our world is the current game being played?

I have argued against this idea on the grounds of our knowledge of physics. The energy of the vacuum is just too random and detailed to be run on any computer, although the edge of science is now at a point where it thinks some digital fundamental nature of reality is likely.

Psychologically a simulation view of reality fits our brains perfectly, as they have evolved to simulate reality to identify risks and opportunies in our future. This is the primary use of our brain, to select outcomes that maximize the chance of our future experience of what we love. The later is clear from people that survived all kinds of ordeals (like bitter cold on the Himalayas), its always love that keeps them going.

A dutch astrophysicist proposed a theory that the information content of space is limited and that if one area contains a lot of information this depletes resources from nearby space. This was his way to explain gravity. It would also make sense to a gamer who wanted to render a scene. He/she would attempt to use the computational resources to maximize the quality of the render on parts of the scene the gamer would focus on, and use less to draw the rest (which our brain fills in anyway most of the time).

I think spacetime is an amazing medium, with indeed unimaginable computational power. Its all additions of states (on a planck level), that render density fluctuations (by imho collapsing either space or time), that then make up the particles photons etc. The best analogy is that of boiling water, a seithing ocean of turmoil on the tiniest of scales. Our physicists try to name all the whirls and waves in it, and are surprised one particle mutates into another, but its like studying smoke and naming al the vortexes.

The basis of all that dynamism is an incredible ability to resolve to the next state. The system never gets stuck. Boiling water also never gets stuck nut it exists in a spacetime that already doesn’t. Would boiling water in a perfect elastic container (one that gives all the energy back to the liquid) stay boiling eternally? Our spacetime is like that. It is lossless, energy never gets leaves. It gets spread out though over more more spacetime. This suggested the idea to me that if the calculations of reality somehow don’t add up the problem is solved by creating more spacetime. The expansion of the universe is what enables this simulation to ‘run’.

Maybe its only our lack of imagination that we can’t envision this absolutely immeasurable spacetime we exist in as an illusion resulting from some meta-device. But we may try because 1. Its not possible to disprove it and 2. We may hope for some meta-physical assistance in our puny lives. Our primitive minds project all kinds of fears and hopes on inanimate and animate objects, basically on everything we deal with. Why not on reality itself.

It was Tesla that said that there’s something in ‘smoothness’ of transformations between types of energy (mechanical, electric). Nature doesn’t like to be abused, so a quiet battery and a seemingly static rotor in a magnetic field is better than exploding gasses deforming metal pounding the eardrums of bystanders etc. etc. Similarly we may be better off accepting the possibility we are just an illusion created for the entertainment of a meta-lord (or baron), because in our mind we are that meta-lord, we simulate our world to understand it, so we are simulations in a simulation. No friction between the two perspectives..

There will always be more people that want to improve our existence in this simulation than ones that want to destroy it (those usually kill each other). So as long as there are people there will be those that will imagine a better world using their own simulation, translating the bigger simulation into one in which they can live in more happily. If they don’t see themselves as gods but as mere waves in an ocean held together by love, the simulation may let them whirl to every one of its corners eventually.

You can donate to the church of simulationism by being kind to strangers..

Airtravel Energy Anxiety

We should all have learned by now that there is nothing more imporant on this Earth than airtravel. It doesn’t matter if the world is fighting a pandemic, the airtravel industry gets bailed out and can skirt the rules, lie about airborn airquality and literally telling governments ‘checking for Covid is not our job!’. Holland today may have sacrificed many lives because the KLM and Schiphol thought nothing of restrictions to their activities. We have no choice to submit to this tyranny..

Funny then that this vastly polluting industry, burning billions of gallons of fossil fuel every year, dumping many tons of half burned soot around airports (and chemicals used to prevent molding in the fuel), that this industry is looking for alternatives. Spoiler : There is none in the short term.

Eeber jeebers! What a thrist for energy!

But who would have guessed humanity had such a powerfull ally in the search for non-fossil, non-greenhouse gas emitting fuels! Apart from this strange desire to use Hydrogen as a fuel, which also requires 70% more energy than batteries, which then of course needs to be produced. Its strange how these legacy industries produce such pressing demands for rapid deployment of renewables. And perhaps a blessing?

The options are several, but in any case this promises real action on growing biomass in new ways or generating sizable amounts of renewable energy. The world now uses almost 3 TerraWattHour of energy to fly. That is 3.000.000 MegaWattHours (MWh). You can produce that energy with 3.000.000 hectares of solar PV panels, which takes about 30000 km2. So if you cover 3/4 of Holland with solar panels our country could power global airtravel. Sadly there is 70% loss in the proposed use of Hydrogen, so we need about 20000 km2 more, so we end up with 1.2 times the surface of Holland covered with PV. Ok, Let’s do it!

You’d say “But Biomass!!”, and true, this is also a great idea. Seaweed farms could grow a lot, its been known since the 70’s and was one of the first topics I wrote about on this blog. Of course this takes a lot of time and work to scale up, and of course energy to convert. Its more complicated than solar PV for sure. Wind same thing. Of course nobody will complain if the air travel industry steps into growing seaweed big, like say spend $100 Billion on actually growing seaweed in the pacific.

For now it seems these are just promises to keep people from shutting air travel down to minimal proportions until electric air travel becomes practical. That is what is needed. We should all have learned from stupid CCS projects that never go anywhere, or not maybe (aaargh).

I think that we can see electric airtravel over say 700 km pretty soon, for small planes (~50 passengers) and so to get to the USA from Europe yo’d have to make 6/7 hops? So with 6/7 floating airports in the Atlantic the trip can be made. Of course its easy to put floating solar power plants around those airports to generate the electricity. In case the option of seaweed is taken seriously (which it must be right?) creating floating habitats cheaper than complete ships will likely become an industry. Also a win! In any case, its good to have such a powerfull industry on the side of massive deployment of renewable energy!

The New Kings

Banks want you to hate billionairs. You may think billionairs steal from you, but wait until you have thought about what banks do, and how vast their financial reserves are. Banks are backed by a central bank or federal reserve. Their funds are unlimited.

There is a reason for this being made a problem today, because before we would chear on the super rich, as a symbol of success. Now somehow billionairs are a bunch of criminals. What happened?

To make it super simple : There is now an exit route from the bank dominated world. There is a way to cut your credit needs and costs to zero. This means you will reduce your need for loans and support, even though prices have been maximized by bank loans in the market you are operating in. How? By using renewable energy. If you own all the energy capacity you need to manufacture what you want, then your need for credit drops to zero. And BANKS DONT LIKE THAT.

Now what are billionairs really? Peope with more than $ in the bank? Often this is not the case. Often the number is derived from sale of the stock position of a billionair at the current stock price. But of course once you start selling the stock the price drops, after all whowever wants to buy wants to pay the lowest price, and you want to sell so you need to drop the price. Then you may still not find a buyer. Because the trading ‘channel’ of for example the NASDAQ (where TSLA trades) is quite narrow, a 50k share sale can drop the price if nobody is buying. 50k shares of about 993 million shares in circulation. Elon dropped the price of TSLA 30% recently by selling about 1 mln stock. So a stock – billionair is not as rich as it seems.

Many companies are totally owned by banks in the sense that they can not operate without the continuous consent of banks. What banks want is to own cashflow generating operations, but not really run them of course. They watch how companies develop and if they see a winner they push them into debt. All major car companies have been bailed out and are leaning on banks.

Who don’t? Tech companies mostly. You can easily spot it by the different attitude most of them have. Their capital costs (investments) have been low compared to add revenue they generate. These companies are doing things banks don’t like for example build large renewable energy installations, or like Tesla, start an energy company. Still because most of industry is in the pocket of the banks, maximizing profit and thus cost in any project, banks get a fair share and they can stifle progress in a zillion ways.

What they can’t stop is a person with cash. They can inject stupidity in the form of a bank-loyal CEO or other employee to make the startup waste money, but they can’t really stop it if the company owner is paying attention. Here you had Elon Musk that decided he wanted to start a financial services company with next to no money (couple of million), potentially undermining all of banking with Paypall ( Yikes! He sold it, and went on to start an EV company called Tesla and a space technology company called SpaceX. The EV company almost got tanked by someone bleeding money until he was fired. SpaceX is still fought but has close ties with NASA and the Pentagon so what is a bank going to do..

Value comes from two factors : Whether you create make it or protect it. You can grow food, but if your lord has a weapon and can take it from you, I guess you’re a peasant paying 10% tax. Also if that lord doesn’t have a castle and can’t protect his stuff he will be run over and all his posessions will end up with people who can..

Banks used to create value by offering protection. This value was then abused mainly by making sure people do not cooperate and think they need money all the time (money creation was made super easy by the same banks and still is dead easy). Simple divide and conquer. Sow mistrust, don’t let people help each other. They where so good at it that kings and queens had to beg them because they where caught in wars they didn’t start or couldn’t afford.

But billionairs don’t have to care. They can whip out a 100 million and move millions of people in one direction or another. They can buy so much fossil fuels that a whole country runs dry. They are the real kings today, and they do pay taxes!

Bernie Sanders keeps hammering on his “pay your fair share” and then focuses on Elon Musk but Elon pays more than 50% tax. His companies pay lots of taxes (permits, licenses, road tax, customs) all his workers pay some tax, he pays VAT. In a way a company is just people working towards a limited set of goals, but tax wise they are not much different from a city full of entrepeneurs working towards many different goals. There’s just maximum cooperation.

Bernie wants you do hate the only people that can improve your fate, because if banks wanted to we would not have any climate change problems. Instead banks maximized fossil credit cashflow, and will try to keep doing that. If they fail (because renewables have become dirt cheap) they will be obsolete!

If you want to hate billionaris pick the right ones, the ones that are fully funded by banks. The Koch brother, those that drive fossil consuption, those that actually do the wrong thing. But beware, a billionair -can- do the right thing, a bank who has much bigger financial means, -can not-. Banks never do what is against their interest, which is to keep the fossil cashflow flowing, and in fact, they will attack and undermine anyone that may be a threat, including billionairs with your help.

We live under bank tyrants that have pushed humanity into an overburdened, polluting, resource depleting lifestyle that will soon crash due to its consequences. Then we have billionair kings that can move people, resources and intellect to find solutions to the risks we face. People without the means have no way to help anyone. So we should support our billionair kings when they do what we think is good. Not blindly attack them as if we don’t have a mind of our own.

ECJ quietly kills off the banking system, makes cryptocurrencies VAT exempt..

Its the dream of anyone with a deep seated hatred for all things banking. Being able to create and use your own currency. Now thanks to a ruling of the ECJ this is possible, in Europe. The court ruled that Bitcoin is a currency, detailing exchanges that transfer traditional currencies into the crypto-coins for a fee are to be exempt from consumption taxes. This means that any exchange between coins is also tax exempt, and thus any cryptocurrency will be.

Of course this will be a bonus for Bitcoin, as anyone wanting to use it in Europe can now exchange it with Euros and back, even if this is not the raison d’etre of Bitcoins. All this does is load more money transfer work onto banks, who by the way are eager to take part in some virtual currency trading. It’s simply a better system to have block chain secured ledgers than vulnerable AS400 systems maintaining them with much less robustness and verifiability.

But bitcoins are not where banks are going to suffer. It is with people that understand money, that know it is a contract, usually empty or good for fossil fuels in our carbon credit economy, but something the function of which can be fully replaced by any cryptocoin provided there is a linked asset/commodity that is highly liquid (like oil, gas, coal). Nothing stops farmers to demand all payment for their grain in their own crypto currency, making such currency instantly valuable and necessary in the European economy, and the farmers instantly powerfull in it.

We always agued for IT people to adopt the Bitcoin, because it takes some understanding of software and computers to even protect Bitcoin from attacks. It is actually vulnerable to attacks, especially because the rate of production for Bitcoin is slowing down. We where always against Bitcoin because of its basic wastefull energy intensity. The sectors that has most profited from Bitcoin until today are the energy and mining hardware producers. Banks have suffered from untraceable money transfers, because every time someone spends 1000 european bitcoins in the US, somehow the euro’s invested in Europe have to be exchanged for the Dollars cashed in in the US.

The shortest route for banks to die of the comming bonfire of commodity/service/sector specific cryptocurrencies is to 1. Replace internal money exchange with these currencies and 2. Start producing goods you only sell for a cryptocurrency you produce (and thus manage the value of that currency by matching the amount of it solde with the amound of goods/services produced). 3. Sell renewable energy in them, so the value of the RE will not constantly be implicitly compared with that of oil, coal and gas.

We are stoked. This is the end of currency capture, also because any well run cryptocurrency can be used to pay taxes (as it is easy to exchange with the legal means to do so). Wake up European producers, you are free to trade as you wish now.



Pensioenen aan het eind van het fossiele tijdperk

De verbeelding van de meeste mensen die nadenken over de economie gaat niet zo ver. Was dit wel zo geweest dan zouden ze de zwaktes in het economisch denken snel hebben ontdekt, namelijk : het heeft geen geheugen. De economie is als vuur dat brand, consumerend zonder besef van verleden of toekomst. De economie voorstellen als vuur is niet zomaar een metafoor, het is -Geen- metafoor. Het vuur brand in de auto motoren, gas en kolen centrales, jet engines, diesel generatoren, en al de mechanische energie die of direct of via electrische weg aan het vuur wordt onttrokken consumeert, zonder idee hoe lang al of hoe lang nog.

‘140 miljard euro pensioengeld in rook opgegaan’ 

Het vuur van de economie dooft, deels omdat de brandstof over meer mensen moet worden verdeeld, deels omdat we indirect meer gebruik maken van het ‘vuur van de zon’. Die fusie energie (technische gesproken geen vuur), die fotonen die de Zon gemiddeld 1000 jaar nadat ze in haar binnenste ontstaan prijsgeeft, beweegt de wind of kan direct worden omgezet in electriciteit. Zonder eigenaar, zeer betrouwbaar en voorspelbaar, maar problematisch voor de economie. De economie wil consumeren met vuur. Het heeft moeite met ‘consumeren met fusie’. De reden is dat onze economie volledig op het consumeren met vuur is afgestemd. Het houdt constant in de gaten hoeveel vuur er kan worden gemaakt, hoeveel olie, kolen en gas er is, en hoe dit verdeelt moet worden om tot de meest efficiente en productieve consumtie te komen, via het verstrekken van krediet. Waar krediet wordt verstrekt heeft men de potentie om vuur te maken door brandstoffen te kopen, waar te weinig krediet is (al ons geld is krediet) kan dit niet. Hier zien we de economie ietsjes voorruit denken, maar niet meer dan hoogstens een paar jaar.

Om geld uit te kunnen geven moet er iets geproduceerd zijn dat men kan kopen

Pensioenen zijn in economische zin een anomalie. Als ze een grote cash voorraad zouden zijn dan zou dit zeer zorgelijk zijn voor economomen, banken enz. Want een sloot geld zoals het ABP bijvoorbeeld beheert, nu 1.260 Biljoen Euro, kun je niet allemaal in een dag uitgeven. Stelt u zich eens voor wat daarvoor nodig zou zijn. Naast alle productie die we momenteel consumeren zou er opeens per nederlander ~78000 Euro aan spullen beschikbaar moeten zijn. Dat zijn bijna drie gemiddelde jaarsalarissen. Alle winkels zouden drie keer zoveel in voorraad moeten hebben, drie keer zoveel treinen, vliegtuigen, concerten, supermarkten etc. etc. Omdat al deze zaken er niet zijn zou een poging dit geld uit te geven leiden tot een geldontwaarding van 75%. Dit om te laten zien dat geld in een pensioenfonds an sich geen idee geeft over de waarde ervan. Een pensioen met 100000 miljard zonder producerende economie heeft waarde nul.

Onze pensioenen zijn belegd, maar dat verandert niet veel aan de zaak. Een belegging is slechts het indirect ter beschikking stellen van het geld in de economie : U koopt een aandeel zodat het bedrijf krediet krijgt. Als het aandeel er eenmaal is kan het bedrijf krediet krijgen afhankelijk van hoeveel mensen het aandeel willen hebben. Al dit krediet is alleen iets waard als de bedrijven er hun grondstoffen e.d. mee kunnen kopen, en dat kan alleen als de brandstof om dit te doen beschikbaar is. Niemand weet of dit over 20 jaar zo is, dus bedrijven waar u nu in belegt kunnen dan wel totaal waardeloos zijn. U heeft ook in aandelen geen enkele houvast. Houvast is iets waar de economie niet aan doet, met houvast had u de economie niet nodig. Belegd of in cash, pensioenen hebben nevelachtige betekenis.

De manier waarop de economie met de toekomst omgaat is simpel : De toekomst is fantastisch tot ze onontkenbaar rampzalig is en dan is dat een verassing. Echter de economie bestaat uit mensen voor wie alles nog wel werkbaar is en deze mensen (in banken en bedrijven) absorberen de ruines van bedrijven die ten onder gaan, de werknemers mogen het zelf uitzoeken en wat er is gebeurt is de volgende dag weer vergeten. De jonge generatie wordt telkens opnieuw geprogrameerd om risico’s te negeren, er leuk op los te leven en komt pas achter de gebreken als het geen stem meer heeft. Links profileert zich als losers, als mensen die het nooit hebben gekund. Iemand die arbeidsongeschikt wordt is zwak en een zeur. De economie vergeet ze en brand verder.

Wie vandaag leest dat het ABP in het afgelopen jaar 10% (!!!) van zijn 1.400 Miljard heeft verloren op de beurs zal in 80% van de gevallen reageren met ‘wat een pech’ of ‘best veel voor mensen die als enige opdracht hebben om veilig te beleggen’. Wie wat meer van beursen vandaag weet zou overigens denken ‘hoe kan dat nou, ABP besluit toch zelf welk rendement ze op de beurs hebben?’ maar dat is voor gevorderden. Maar in feite is de 1.400 miljard alleen van betekenis voor de mensen die er nu iets mee doen. De waarde ervan voor de pensioengerechtigde over 15 jaar is volstrekt onduidelijk. Dit is het grote manco van ons economisch systeem : Het denkt niet na over de toekomst. Pensioenen zijn een anomalie waarvan het succes echt met de dag wordt bepaald en gerealiseerd.

Pensioenen van Zon en Wind

Om nu te voorkomen dat dit te duidelijk merkbaar wordt is het handig als in de komende jaren de geldwaarde van pensioenen slinkt zodat de koopkracht van de pensioen gerechtigde straks afgestemd is op de fossiele productiecapaciteit van de economie. Laten we het ‘de felheid van het vuur’, noemen.  Dit kan omdat de beleggingen grotendeels in dezelfde economie zijn ondergebracht, en als deze krimpt door afname van of behoefte aan fossiele brandstoffen dan zal de vraag naar aandelen ook dalen. De economie zal haar krimp niet echt doorhebben, wie niet mee kan doen wordt vergeten door de mensen die dat nog wel kunnen. De ‘economen’ zullen het op zo’n manier uitleggen dat we de schuld niet zoeken bij het economisch systeem en zijn stervende vlam.