I read that according to a report from Verisk Maplecroft an orderly transtion towards renewables is no longer likely for the G20:
“Because the G20 is way behind, that raises the prospect of more dramatic and disruptive policy action in the relatively near future. “[K]eeping the 2°C Paris Agreement target in sight will require widespread government intervention over the coming decade,” the report says.” (bron)
1.5 degrees warming will likely be reached by 2025, and so this spells 2 degrees warming is in the cards and stopping it will be hard.
“Our data underscores that it is clear there is no longer any realistic chance of an orderly transition”
But what does that mean. If the effects of warming will take hold, this means floods, famines, heatwaves, torrents. We see them today in Russia, the US. 48 Celsius temperatures in the arctic. The weather extremes will become such that it will be hard to survive or even have a functioning society. Even though warming is already 1 on average, local extremes can mean +15 degrees or more.
The problem with the above is that the disorder can be explained in two ways. First it can mean sudden severe restrictions on fossil emissions and certain industries. Secondly it can mean that society breaks down. This is not unlikely if there is no food, no water, too much heat. As the warming proces and its extreme effects are real, this consequence can also be real.
Should we pretend there will be a society in 20 years time and do what we allways did? Earth is not the same planet anymore. The conditions for this evolutionairy shift are quickly slipping away, and so will the life that it brought forth. It seems the “”Big Dying” will get a repeat. The question is how quick will we fail to cooperate as we do today. It is not scary but existential and imporant to consider. Already it is hard to get help of many kinds the way you could 20 years ago.
There should be a definite simulation of the future according to the worst case scenario, or maybe a modest active scenario. What it produces is what will happen. Then we need to act on what will happen, everyone individually, and perhaps we need to organize in order to deal with it. If we trust the government we will see that it will be all about money, nothing else. It will be about jobs for people that turn over a lot of fossil fuels. This is what our system is based on, our system of banks, of government of industry. How do we get out of this run away train?
We need to cool the planet, or at least the populated areas. It’s necessary because the freak week with 50 Celsius in Germany is no longer unimaginable. People will die, plants and animals will all be slowly cooked. The reason for the fast warming seems to lie in the oceans no longer being able to absorb more heat. The imbalance is reported to be 1 Watt/m2, which is double from what it was only a decade ago. This means heat is building up in our atmosphere and it has no way to escape.
Geoengineering is a big term that has been made very scary such that it causes a pavlov reaction just like “communism” and “holocaust” even if they are used wrongly
In order for Earth not to turn into Venus, due to runaway processes like methane release and widespread forest fires and oxydation of soil carbon, drastic measures are needed. The economy is not capable of it because its goal is to maximize fossil credit cashflow (as discussed in other posts). So what measures -can- be taken without too much obstruction?
Shading : SpaceX is developing rockets that can hurl hundreds of tons of cargo to orbit or anywhere in space really. We need shade, because the cooling effect also enhances the carbon capturing power of plants on land. This could take the form of gigantic stretches of Mylar or some other material, maybe even sourced from the moon or other places. By the time this kind of initiative gets going it will all be automated, designed and run by AI. The stratospheric sulfur meme is still around (has been since the damn 50’s) but we moved on from that (I hope).
Maybe the starlink constellation can add a few % solar occulsion in due time. Plants get plenty of light and warmt to grow. Shading during the day and not blocking outgoing radiation during the night can double the effectiveness.
But what about bringing the heat from the ground up to the edge of space. The atmosphere will, as it warms up, of course rise higher because the warming gas molecules want to occupy more space. This is already noticable to satelites that experience more (atmospheric) drag in their orbit than before. But this heating and expanding will be a stale business after a while (and winds will actually die down as we all swelter and then broil in our atmosphere). It is better to break this so called “stratification” or layering.
Stratification has a history of being a problem. Oceans have stratified several times, meaning they developed a nutrient poor but solar intense hot top layer over a nutrient rich and dark rest. Of course this put the tools for life in the wrong place, and oceans that reached that state have often remained dead for thousands of years. Only tectonic shifts could change currents and mix the layers again, giving a new chance to life. There are many stratified “dead zones” in the oceans today and it makes sense to mix the waters there as well. I have written about that before.
But what would happen if we created a piece of land, preferably the middle of a desert, where we concentrated a lot of heat on purpose (like with a solar tower) and caused convection (maybe even aided by turbines). The air would rise due to relative boyancy, and would be able to cool against space. At ground level air would be drawn into the region, maybe humid because it passed over water, and carry that humid heat to the top of the atmosphere where it would cool removing the heat from the ground.
It seems we have a natural version of this, called the hurricane tornado or cyclone. The best version is the huricane that is over hot water, where it loads up with heat energy which is then turned into the movement of air and water (and cows and sheds) and dispersed, also partly into space. Hurricans die over land, because the land does not store or give off heat that easily. I have written about this process, which start by breaking a saturated layer of air above the water (stratification again) which prevents more evaporation. Once that happens more water evaporates, causing an upwards convection which in turn breaks the saturated layer : The genie is out of the box.
I have written about an actual solar tower in Spain, which has been in operation between 1985 and ’94 or something, generating power by heating air which would rise through a chimney, which would then drive a wind turbin in that chimney. It worked fine, but the fossil industry killed it like it has killed so many answers to the menace we experience today.
As you can see from the above picture, to get energy from the updraft you need a chimney, if your goal is merely to cause convection you don’t need the chimney. You can probably use some of the case study calculations to see how much convection you get. The ground below it was made black but a lot of heat would still radiate back. The advantage of this design is that the air gets heated gradually. It would be interesting to see if there was any cooling effect in the region.
In life you can come across nice products, like a chair, that look nice and are comfortable to sit on. Then there are chairs you can buy for a lot of money that just blow your mind because they show you what a sitting exprience can actually be. All over the world in companies there are people who just try to get passed the next performance review and those that are simply obsessed with perfecting some aspect of what they do or create. They will tell you things about the pittfalls of the optimization process you never would have guessed. They don’t waste one second contemplating any of your ideas because they have already done so long ago.
The same goes for the process of winding down the activities of the fossil industry. It is a new thing that needs to happen, and you can do it sleepwalking or you can do it right. The reality is that nobody is yet doing it, and nobody understands how to do it. I have seen no paper on how shut down use of fossil fuels on a global scale. Sure you can set a “net zero” target that will reduce consumption of fossil fuels. The dutch energy company Eneco announced it will no longer facilitate natural gas use by 2035 which is quite an amazing step. But of course a lot of societies functions run on fossil fuels, there is gestrategic order based on fossil fuel control, wars fought about it, endless lobbying for it, an entire political side (US republicans and conservatives) that are primary lakeys of the fossil industry.
Having thought about this challenge a lot in the recent decade one of my suggestions was to start by splitting money into three currencies (in Europe for example), the Euro the Auro and the Joule. Simply put (you can read more here) you need the Euro if you want to buy fossil fuels, the Auro if you want to buy labour (human effort) and the Joule if you want to buy renewable energy. This is a method if you can not get all the oil companies under global control. This suggestion will have to get the support of the ECB, national banks which is unlikely. What it would do is isolate the fossil fuel dependent economy, because you need Euro’s only to buy products that are made with the help of fossil fuels. It facilitates the emission of Joules by renewable energy generators (with a very location dependent value) who could sell their energy to central storage (at a discount of the energy loss). The Auro’s can simply be a fixed amount related to the total human work capacity in ‘circulation’. This method would still be very hands off the fossil industry.
If you decide to touch the fossil industry you have a challenge, as we have seen from Shell this week, the company needs to reduce the total emissions it causes by its production and sale of oil and gas according to a court judgement. It has now sold off its Shale Oil operation in Texas also because it has a high methane pollution factor (methane emissions in the US are off the chart due to fracking, methane can cause brain and heart seizures and some fracking wells are venting 100% due to the high cost of logistics). You see that in a free market world for fossil fuels someone else will simply get to the oil and sell it. It is good to see this demonstrated though. What is the expert response? It involves a lot of pieces of the puzzle at once, a lot of cooperation. A global sessasion of full scale war. Many other large changes that can only be decided by those in real power.
All this is happening against a background of growing chaos due to the application of AI and internet, drones, satelites. It seems the chip shortage may be on purpose to not facilitate terrorists needing sophisticated chips to make their bombs. A more down to Earth explanation is that crypto mining and gaming ate all the reserves. China is trying to steal ASML’s cutting edge tech, every time again a lack of cooperation and trust is ruining the order needed to fix things. Everyone wants to fix his/her personal life. Looking beyond it is too hard. The way to fix this seems to be to detach from the global production machine that eats fossil fuels and resources, not through rioting in the street, but by becoming “Easy Antifa” as I coined it.. There really needs to be a doctrine that has many aspects of life that people need to adopt in order to accelerate the growth of renewable energy capacity and reduce the power of banks over our lives.
You can be a poor country and not know what is going on or what will happen or not even care at all, that happens. Especially when you have uneducated religious minorities and low technological development, no exported resources that you get money from (your country may be in debt). You can also read (if you care about it) that climate change will make your country a living hell pretty soon. With no means or organization to protect yourself or your people what do you do?
If it is up to the fossil/nuclear goons the world will divide into comfortable air conditioned high-tech elite and an poor, abused and obstructed rest. For some time renewables might give people hope but the fossil credit system will not die and changes may occur so fast nobody can really get advantage. Ironically in a nuclear war scenario the people most likely to surivive are the ones running a nuclear power plant (who can use its electricity to grow food). This all sounds very dark but what do we see today? Promises to reduce emissions but no ability to break away from the banks or the fossil fuel industry.
So I already suggested to divide the world into pieces of land and give them to each of its citizen, or to divide the world and give it to the one that cares the most. Land can be very cheap indeed. The problem is that electricity is not everywhere and Shell is keeping Thin Film solar off the market (in a perpetual promising research limbo). Still it makes no sense to let people unable or unwilling manage land that could be used to save both the people on it and the rest of the planet. A better solution can be decided by the military leaders, which is pretty simple indeed.
Really who cares about bums with kalashnikovs? Why aren’t there remote metal detectors? Just ban large metal objects.
Why not divide the world and sell the parts to the group or people with the best plans and resources. This may be a naive thought because maybe this is the way it already is, but there seems to be a lot of land nobody is interested in where nothing is happening because it is owned by a country that has no means or interest to develop it. Development for climate protection may also look very different from any economic type (which always involves investment of fossil credit and expansion of the use of fossil fuels).
Lush green countries will also dry up. Growing “economic crops” may not be the best thing for them to do at all!
It is a pity the islands like Tuvalu and Vanuatu are in the grip of some bigger authority, either China or Australia, and can no longer be sovereign masters over their territory, because otherwise they’d be a prime example of land owners who sell their land to someone that does want to help them. It is only the anti-social scarcity creating fossil economy that immediately starts to exclude people from land, seldomly the social life promoting renewable powered people, so they would be in good hands. Mark my words, soon you will be able to buy land to fix things, there may even be a website where you can look up places where you can take effective climate action in return for authority. We need thin film solar though, that will make a huge difference!
Tesla is charging ahead not only with its cutting edge electro motor designs taking the efficiency and performance of its cars to new heights. It is also developing chips to run its AI algorithms, as well as continuously improving the quality of AI. I wrote about so called Roadbots and how they will change the way we can manipulate our environment, do maintenance and supply emergency help. The combination of on board AI and the availability of a massive amount of energy (in the tesla battery) seems to create even more possiblities than I imagined at first.
If a Tesla self drives (let’s say the Cybertruck) to a location where some manipulation is needed, you’d be tempted to say an electric pickup truck arrived and that’s it. But a Cybertruck (or for that matter any Tesla) is also a sensor an compute platform. This means that in the near future you could see bipedal robots get out fo the damn truck, for example powerd by compressed air, and controlled by a combination of the on board computer and one they carry themselves. If you say the truck has a compressed air storage tank it keeps at pressure the bipedal bots can go up to the truck and refill their tanks every so often, then leave for some manipulation of whatever is needed.
You don’t think we can have pole scaling bots that can detach from the rear of the Cybertruck and get up a pole and fix some cable? And what about drones? They can take off, be observed by the cars cameras and piloted, they can return video footage themselves (where one core of the cars computer runs control and the other switches to some tuned visual recognition algoritm). This way you can have all kinds of functions performed by one car, and you can have humans in the loop as well. Perimeter patrolling? Of course! Search and rescue? Of course!
Some pretty dystopian image come to mind if you image an angry roadbot cybertruck trying to catch some “terrorists” where drones leave the driving car packed with explosives or lasers or spikes and all before you know it they are shooting through the back window etc. You’ve seen the movie. But this will be real pretty soon.
Roadbots can go anywhere, certainly when they are linked to the starlink constellation. One that starts in Holland can basically drive all the way to Egypt to do a task and then come back. They can be used to build solar charging stations where nobody ever goes, and start fighting climate effects or increasing the viability of land where nobody is looking.
It will already be amazing to have full self driving cars. But see what happens if they stop, an android gets out, climbs on your roof to fix a shingle, gets off back into the car and your problem is solved. Same with cleaning the house. Same with painting spots on wood fences. The list can be pretty long if we assume there will be some kind of walking (sub) platform, because that really allows it to get almost anywhere. How about planting trees. Soon enough Aircos and other equipment will be desinged for robot fixing, but also soon enough the robots will know how to fix anything.
Make roadbots part of the new infrastructure bill
This is all a good thing, because we need robot hands to reduce environmental impact of humans, as well as to help fight climate change!
Right wing politics is inspired by industrial requests for changes in laws. The top of that food chain consists of banks and the fossil industry, who have to be served by changes no matter what (as far as they can control it). The goal is to create consumers and use fossil fuels to allow as much cashflow to occur in the economic system (as consumers consume all resource using fossil energy, including fossil energy).
One way to sell projects to people is to mention jobs. This airport creates 2000 jobs! This is because most people are in jobs, which are not very secure (Right wing politics always reduces job security as it executes request from industry!). Telling them there will be more jobs is telling them there’s less risk. It also talks to the rest of industry : If you support this project you will get a piece of the action (because employees buy products), not only the state that taxes our income.
But this is a blind economistic argument “jobs”. What about jobs in a highly polluting chemical factory? Or Jobs at casino’s? There should be a way to qualify jobs as to their effect on the rest of the economic ‘ecosystem’ (weird juxtaposition). Not all jobs are equal. Not all jobs are desirable. Some expose workers to toxins. Some lead to waste of natural resources or addiction (tabacco).
The value of a job should be seen as the sum of all its consequences for the real world, not its effect on the economy
So one can say that any job that is created should be counted in relation to the effect on the overal wellbeing of people in using the products or services created. This can almost be calculated. Now jobs are only qualified from the perspective of industry, on how much they cost, what education level is required, where they are located. For products there are some tracking options that will tell you if it has been produced sustainably, but I have not yet seen this for jobs. How would you calculate?
Energy gain/cost per hour on the job
Fossil fuel gain/cost per hour on the job
Biomass gain/cost per hour on the job
Water gain/cost per hour on the job
Education level gain/cost per hour on the job
The above is not a strange process in economics. But if you take the example of a local baker compared to a big bread factory for a region, that factory will have less jobs. Those jobs will be energy intensive because these people need to drive to the bread factory, but the bread itself will be made less energy intensive because of the use of a large baking oven. Maybe the flour has to be transported less times to the factory than to the baker. You can see that fossil fuel cost quickly translates into production cost, so the idea to minimize costs as the economy does is not entirely stupid.
Jobs at a big supermarket quickly become undesirable because everybody needs to drive to it, in all kinds of old vehicles. How is that better than having local stores that are closer to the end consumer?
A farmer using fertilizers and GM crops and diesel as fuel is putting 10 calories into producing 1 calorie of food (this is an old statistic, may bave improved). He holds 1 job, but maybe 10 farmers with less sophisticated methods will be energetically and environmentally efficient.
An airport may create 1000 jobs and people will say they bring cash to tourist destinations, but that means that for the pleasure of the tourist call kinds of emissions are produced in these destinations. Some are good some are bad. Car miles are saved, but airco hours are gained.
Building an oil pipeline which makes fuel available to millions may be seen to create a lot of jobs, but all those jobs will depend on emitting more greenhouse gasses. So then those jobs would get a negative score.
It is clear that modelling of the value of jobs is more complex the more you want to tie it to actual real life consequences, instead of just a number in a bank account (salaries which will become turnover in local stores and online). Still this would make it easier to see if, when jobs are created, they are jobs we actually want.
Antifa or Anti-fascism is a title given to a mixed bag of people, some insane, some sane, that are generally unhappy and distrustfull of government. They show up at protests and some have real rational motivations, others are just excited to do anything and others again are thugs or right wing infiltrants that are supposed to make the movement look bad.
To deconfuse what anti-fascism is : It is a movement against fascism (haha gotcha!). What is Fascism? Its an invention of Musolini, copied bij Hitler. It primarily consists of the rule of industry over the people. Industry generally does not care about human lives, so in order to gain political momentum it has to make people hate themselves, this is done by making them angry and unhappy and blaming it on some subgroup, you know the story. But to go back to the core, it is when industry calls the shots.
Today the core of fascism in our system lies in its financial system. It works very hard to be inescapable, cash is phased out, your transactions shared with companies. You as a consumer or citizen are not only punished for crimes (which the law does) but also directed and influenced against your needs or interests on a daily basis. Facebook is industry, Amazon is industry, Google is industry. No matter how lofty their ‘values’ are, they look at a financial bottom line, people do not figure in the equation. Even if they say that they tailor the experience to be most attractive to the user, they have no idea when the user becomes addicted or his/her use of the services becomes a problem.
Industrial international corporations dominate for a simple reason, they are big organizations that have programmed our minds well, we have been conditioned to like them and buy their products reliably. Banks like that. They rather finance a company that turns over 1.000.000 cans of soda reliably than two that turn over 600.000 unreliably. The numbers speak for themselves, they also make people greedy because how can numbers change in a positive way? Only by going up! Once people rely on for example Coca Cola sales to feel secure they stop caring if Coca Cola steals fresh water or dumps plastic in our oceans. My mantra is : Industry does not care about your life. The world is full of business models that ran out of control. The fossil industry is an example. And these business models defend themselves, with help of banks or out of fear for them.
Fascism is also the conditioning of people to work wel with industry. So many people at Shell think they landed a dream job, they show exceptional self control to not be thrown out of this mamoth organization with its neatness and expat culture still very much alive and kicking. On the flip side workers are put in perpetual uncertainty so they basically stare into a social abyss most of their low wage job carreer (which can end instantly with some injury or new robot or AI tech being introduced)
So the core problem of fascism is that you are governed by ideas produced from an profit motive which we call economic thinking, which is detached from both the means it uses and its effect on human and physical resources beyond what is can be observed by financial transactions. Even if a Ikea wants to know what you think of the Likerakko (name altered so I’m not sued) inorganic neck support pillow, it is because it wants to be turning over products and see higher financial numbers. If the pillow happens to be stuffed with a toxic sedative and 99% of respondents tell Ikea they sleep much better since they use it (but die of cancer 10 years later), Ikea will make more of them!
From this it follows that Antifa is a much bigger movement, which can be summed up by people who think about what they experience and feel and conclude there is something wrong with the products and institutions they have to choose from, in that it makes them think of suffering, risk to their own lives or others and long term damage as well as unnecessary social isolation and unfair treatment of certain groups of people.
People that never think about such things are not Antifa. There are plenty who will say “these mittens where made by children’s hands in Myanmar Haha!!” and slap another slice of bacon on the grill. People make choices about what they care about. Some never think about anything because all their choices are dictated by their peer group or the media they consume or their financial desperation.
So does it help to be a mob wearing black in a field being confronted by police with water canons? Does it help to be perpetually angry and find new ways the system is screwing you to rage about? The system may be doing that on purpose you know. It is a self defending industrial system with every means to its disposal. Sensation media are just enraging narratives to keep the people from focusing their energy on what will improve their lives. People that have very good lives are not angry every day (except when they are industrial indoctrinators like Rush Limbaugh). In fact the people that ‘escape’ the system are varied probably above average intelligent. It is not hard however to be Antifa at all.
You can not simply say ‘Antifa’ is Democrats or ‘Antifa’ is left wing politics. Industrial interests are represented by politicians of every political color. Some may be raging against deforestation, the murder of forest protection activists, but they will then fly back home where they have a mortgage and give their kids all the trappings of modern industrially created wealth. Like getting rid of fossil fuels is hard when every damn thing runs on it, it is hard to become non industrially governed when the government is clearly 100% pro-fossil fuel industrial economics. But it is possible.
Being Antifa can be a game. The principles are simple :
Own stuff, own land
Buy stuff you need from local sources
Buy products you understand
Cooperate with anyone you can learn to trust
Avoid mass media and don’t get angry over what you read or see or hear
Use as little money as possible, help others save money
Vote for people that want to use renewable energy to create wealth, because ownership of such energy sources is easier to distribute
Learn a skill that is usefull, get in shape.
A tricky one : Go bankrupt. Shed debt and help others shed debt.
Far from being some kind of unhinged rage habit above choices are simple and can be part of a peacefull existence. Still if this agenda is followed by the majority of the country you will see smaller producers thrive, you will have a better chance to monitor any negative consequences. Banks will not have a massive “brand” they can park anywhere, because you have local tastes. You know your fruits (figure of speech), your life is not too complicated. You don’t need industry, you are silently bleeding the life out of it to death and the capacity of local energy sources (and thus the wealth that can be produced locally) grows.
This is antifa done right. The response of industry will be to try to make you love some product that draws you back into a “lifestyle”. You will be shamed and branded poor and fringe and socialist and antisocial. Industry will find people to anger and make them hate you (this is what you can see with the hatred against communism and socialism). So stick together. Form communions and don’t let anyone in that pretends to have big bucks. The fast cash strategy that ravaged Greece and Spain and Portugal in recent decades is losing steam anyway it seems, it is all fossil fuel dependend. That is why adopting renewables is such an important part of “Antifa Done Right”. Try it. Its easy. Call your self an practitioner of ‘Easy’ Antifascism
This post may be a bit too early, so it will be updated..
It seems important to make a distinction in our public messaging, the media in general between entertainment, propaganda and news. We want entertainment, it amuses us, we don’t want propaganda (including adds) but people that pay for it want us to be exposed to it, and we do want news, even if it is not directly relevant to us. News is what journalism is about, it is factual information about our changing world, as if we have witnessed it ourselves.
Due to the pervasive and ever growing power of economisme, banks seeking more cashflow, almost every media channel is now ‘polluted’ with entertainment and propaganda, such that you can’t really rest your head after seeing anything, you have to have some evidence, proof, prior knowledge to filter out constant distortions. Some of those are a simple result of ignorance on the part of the media content producers, others are politically motivated (someone will get rich if you believe it), it is a constant struggle to live in a real world. Ai is making it increasingly unlikely a shocking video or audio recording of someone saying something outrageous is real. This is besides the fact that it may not be relevant at all. Personalization of the internet experience makes it harder not to respond to.
But what is news really? It is about how countries fare, if people fight or if they are happy. If they can go about their lives or whether there’s an earthquake or tsunami, or an army invading. Maybe there’s a rally and police hit protesters. Much of this is visible from space if you think about it. For any government decision you need not be a journalist, the government will announce any significant changes and steps. Even bills and laws are public so you could analyse those. What happens on the ground is all visible from the vantage point of the average satelite though, and there’s no trouble using AI to tell us what is going on anymore.
Not every region is surveilled 24/7 by a geostationary satelite but this can soon change. George Cloony famously launched his own satelite to watch Sudan’s border so the waring parties could not lie about what was going on. As launching satelites becomes rediculously cheap (apart from data being freely available) it should make sense to develop a global heatmap website, one that tells us if things are normal or not around the world. Anyone with a specific interest can then ask for analysis and monitoring of the region of his/her choice. Over time this monitoring, matched with social media streams can become more detailed and precise.
Biometrics are measurements of biological systems, specifically human physical traits like heartbeat, iris structure, fingerprints, gait, facial features. Technology to measure them is advancing and the use of them is limited by some governments. They are at least controled by Europan law such that biometric data has to be stored securely or rather not stored at all (enforced by fines when there is a data breach or hack). However such fines are a small price to pay to get biometric data on individuals.
You can not change your biometric features, so you can not escape detection, this means you can not escape lunatics that may be after you
There are two real risks about biometrics, but the risk aspect may not be clear to most initially. Many will say “who cares if someone has my fingerprint”. But we see every day that societies can slip into dictatorships, that political factions can become violent and sabotage others (as we see in the US), and that even seemingly harmless people get prosecuted and more or less destroyed (Navalney). All these abuses achieve nothing to improve lives or security of people and should not be facilitated by anyone. Biometrics however can offer a way to identify individuals who may want to flee or become inactive, who may want to fight injustice or who have been profiled to be a threat (Uygurs in China), it is way to easy to find examples where you think a person should be let off the hook, but biometric data would proved a water tight means to catch them.
People in Amsterdam burned the paper register that would identify jews in the city from the german occupier
The historic examples of how destruction of records of individuals saved lives are many, but for now I will focus on the two aspects that make biometrics problemantic. Biometrics is defined as creating a number that denotes a biometric feature of an individual. The first is consistency and the second is proliferation.
Consistency is about how you create a number (alphanumeric or hash) from biometric features. The more consistently you can do it the more dangerous the technology you use is. For example a picture of a fingerprint is not consitent compared to another picture taken with a different camera of the same fingerprint. The numbers (in this case a large image file) are never the same, so comparison and search is hard. Even if all of Russia uses the same camera and lighting (some kind of photo booth) and seat to take the image of a face every image will have a different numeric representation. The reason why pictures can be biometric data is because humans can recognize people in different pictures even if they have been taken under wildly varying circumstances.
Proliferated consistent biometric identification would help those that want to reduce systemic flexibility to the point that change would not be possible or even be imagined by anyone anymore. There are many real world examples of this mental staleness, for example North Korea
Even if you put a group of cryptographers, compression experts and image processing experts at work you still have a hard time reaching a consistent numer for an image. In the case of fingerprints you can reduce a print to a number of features such that you can compare those in a database and find matching print images. Same goes for faces and gait and posture and hands and other biometric aspects. You can train an AI algorithm to compress known data such that it will output a consistent number when supplied with a face or picture of a hand or even video of a person walking. But this consistency then depends on the dataset used to train the AI, it lives in the network connection data. That data can be shared and proliferated and today it can even be used in mobile phones. As a result you can be identified sitting in the middle of nowhere by some person that takes a picture of you. If that person works for Iran or Qanon or some lunatic violent ideologic group you are toast.
Still the above method can be eradicated, the data destroyed and devices destroyed such that a person can rest assured he will not be identified anymore. The risk of consistency is that a system is designed that can be reinstated easily and result in the same identifying number every time. The more general and simple this system is the more risk it holds because it is by now well understood that most people are followers, such that the elimination of examples (leaders) can quickly make them follow someone else. If you do that when the person that draws attention has not achieved notoriety you can be sure you can direct your population by promoting examples you do want them to follow. If you are in doubt about this read Targeted by Britanny Keiser.
Consistency is a threat and this creates a dillema for defence departments that don’t want their potential soldiers be known, yet want to identify any enemy residing in a foreign country as reliably as possible. It may relax the paranoid a bit that it is likely that systems in different countries (who are not satelites of the US, Russia or China) are different enough to not supply each other with usefull data. Facebook however is one damn immense biometric data gatherer, not only of images but of behaviours, maybe even keystrokes who knows.
Have you uploaded todays workout performance to Facebook today? No? Are you going to be a health care burden on others? Comply!
The second risk, proliferation, has been addressed more or less already. What helps is that technology progresses, so platforms for software become obsolete, but on the other hand many have no supplied DNA and 3D face scans and endless TikTok and Instagram, Youtube movies which could be analyzed for defence and threat potential by AI algorithms, which could be building a huge biometric number DB not in one country but in many. For sure banks and other institutions already use profiling of people, the new “Know your customer” requirement to exclude political opponents. This kind of soft discrimination is real and growing, and governments like the one in Holland are not morally equiped to deal with it.
Just like you should leave a gun lying around in a kindergraten I think biometrics should be severely restricted, both in use with dutch companies and foreign parties operating and interacting with dutch citizen. No keystroke analysis, no facial recogntion, no palm pictures no voice profiling. Some want the treshold between people and automated systems to be unnoticable, I personally think it should be a choice to use a digital tool. This is absolutely not what the fossil/credit banking economy wants because it makes it harder for them keep us from realizing the screaming climate danger this system puts us in. For now many are all to happy to pretend they have nothing to hide, but they will have something to hide if they decide the future is more important than the profits of Shell or Rosneft or Aramco. On the other hand, if we abandon fossil energy the risk of war and the need to worry about biometrics will be reduced as more people can prosper without being in debt or having to respect the needs of foreign fossil fuel suppliers.