Mass casualty events occur daily due to our toxicological footprints, but not only to us. To every species on the planet. Sustainability is stalement. Regenerative thinking is the answer.
Good thoughts. I do take issue with tying "Smart Growth" and the shift to electric vehicles together. The whole point of Smart Growth as I understand it is to build cities that don't require private automobiles for personal mobility. The shift to EV's would be an afterthought if Smart Growth principles held greater sway.
... gardens and greenhouses. And still your efforts to counteract all the disasters are in vain, as are your attempts to put a brake on this development, because it is becoming greater and greater and more catastrophic with every day, indeed with every hour and every minute, standing in relation to the rapid increase in overpopulation. Therefore, you human beings of Earth want to resurrect all that has been destroyed so far because of your guilt and irrational- ity as well as irresponsibility, just as you want to keep what has remained whole, whereby however all your efforts in this direction are in vain because you do not come to the right conclusion in rationality. And the right decision is solely and alone this, that the overpopulation be stopped through a worldwide regulation of births and in this wise your earthly humanity be reduced to an extent that is appropriate for the planet and for nature, in which case this extent has been defined in accordance with nature and the planet for the whole Earth at 529 million human beings.
p.117 v.5:
5) And as you create descendants, it shall be done in the measure of insight (rationality) so that the standard mea- sure of the number of all peoples (humankind) does not get out of control in a very bad wise and result in immoderateness (overpopulation) and the world and its weathers, the appearance (nature) and all life on Earth do not suffer great and lasting damage (destruction of the environment/destruction of the climate/extinction of forms of life/wars/crimes, etc.); therefore, the recommendation of insight (rationality) and of control over extent is given for obedience (following) so that no calamity may come over you and your world; consequently, it is recommended that you keep yourselves within bounds (limits) and manage (monitor) the standard measure of the number of all peoples and that you undertake (carry out) a measurement (census) every certain number of years so that the measure of all inhabitants of Earth does not become too great and remains within the num- ber of the maintainable (supportable) without leading to harm (529 million).
The book “McCanney Wing GeneratorTM Distributed Energy National Grid WORLD ENERGY PROJECT” states on pg.10:
“… The next round of investment was to the next level with a 500 foot tall model and finally we would go to the final size of the full scale 1000 foot tall model capable of producing the equivalent of a full size 500 MegaWatt nuclear generator. I had the OK on the engineering end of the project from my private contacts that these were completely feasible to construct on this scale and my own work involved the physics and engineering of a system that could consistently produce this level of energy even at lower wind speeds unlike the 3 blade predecessor “wind turbines” that at most would put out a few megawatts of electricity on a good day and possibly only one tenth of that on an average day.”
pg.45-46:
“The construction of only 300 of the large 1000 foot WING GENERATOR towers in high wind areas of the United States would provide us with eternal free energy for the cost of maintenance. By contrast it would take over 77 million of the 1.5 megawatt 3-blade generators. We can convert to wind and transport the energy from wind areas to the rest of the country on the currently existing power grid (NO SMART GRID NEEDED). The cost of construction of the WING GENERATOR towers would be less than a few nuclear reactors and the social and economic benefits would be passed on immediately. Conversion to a truly electric transportation system with free electric non- polluting power should have obvious benefits. Clearly this will not exactly be popular in certain circles.
If look at the book pg.41-45, will see images of very large ferris wheels already operating. So the tech for the wheels is available now!
Thank for writing this. These are the kind of solutions I long to hear. I will have to follow you more closely, as these are the types of solutions I have been waiting to hear from Daniel Schmachtenberger. He has been so good at describing the problem, but I had yet to hear him detail solutions.
I would like to take some courses. I am work 10 hour days and can not be in front of my computer at specified times. I see that there are concessions to "missing classes," with lectures videos available, but this offer does not seem to be a solution to never being available for class times. I apologize for leaving this comment here. Not sure how else to communicate.
One more question, how do you/I deal with the anxiety created through learning how bad and quickly the environment is being polluted/degraded and how much corruption/capture is allowing it all to occur?
Liberal Democracies will die before Regenerative anything develops. There will be no EPA, no CDC, no NATO. After these fall, let’s talk about what is true and what is fiction.
I am grateful to James Lyons-Weiler for sharpening my perspective on "sustainability" as an historical moment in the swing away from conservationism. If I read him aright, Lyons-Weiler is proposing that as the pendulum swings further in its return course, we are likely to turn to individualistic solutions that "encourage and support the thriving of the things and processes that might be lost under 'Sustainability'". (I note that Lyons-Weiler twice mentions "Limited Liability" in his bulleted list of "Challenges, Sources of Issues and Solutions".)
Through a voluntary system of "transaction donations" - which amounts to old-fashioned philanthropy meted out for specific goals - the consumer supposedly becomes aware of the link between personal expenditures and human misery on a tax-free and de-bureacratized basis. But what is the source of such awareness other then public relations firms, journalistic and academic conduits, and government assessments? All these information-providers function through institutional mediation, which must be funded somehow.
Furthermore, if ever these private donations were to enter a country like the DRC they would be subject to systematic predation (ie theft), such that it would take a well-heeled team of forensic accountants to prevent the boodle from disappearing before it reached the intended recipients.
Lyons-Weiler writes: "Knowing that my cell phone purchase or use is leading to reforestation and helping to underwrite the regenerative health care of people who worked to make it a reality provides a sense of balance and longevity to a regenerative cycle of good." In this wording there is a confusion of levels, where the sentence starts off on subjective note: "Knowing that...provides a sense of balance..." But right at this point, making use of the dual meaning of balance as personal "poise" and objective "equilibrium", Lyons-Weiler adds "longevity to a regenerative cycle..." Yet just knowing something cannot in itself bring equilibrium to a complex system.
So why this confusion? Why imagine a flow of wealth from some percentage of conscience-stricken consumers flowing in an uncoordinated fashion to a mass of raw-material producers, whose wretchedness is kept at a distance by corporate collusion? If the pendulum continues its contrary movement from participant democracy towards totalitarianism, people in meaningful numbers are likely to become insensitive to the impact they have on distant strangers. Those still able to afford electric vehicles after 2030 may not feel much satisfaction in the knowledge "that their small sacrifice is a gift to others and the future of the planet." Fascism is known to blunt such fine sentiments, which bodes ill for philanthropy in general.
Lyons-Weiler employs two metaphors to characterize historic change: (1) the pendulum with its predictable arc; and (2) a fleet of ships that cam slowly change course in any direction the commander chooses. The first usage is mechanistic (and thus pessimistic) about the prospect of human freedom, whereas the second emphasizes the role of mind and will in opposing the autonomous tides of change. Combining both metaphors is the prospect of a pendulum swinging from a beam on a storm-tossed ship. If I remember right, the pendulum will not deviate from course, regardless of the craft's maneuvers. In other words historical inevitability trumps human volition.
The bearing of Lyons-Weiler's discussion stems from the first metaphor; but in searching for a happy solution, he resorts to the second. thus fending off resignation for another day.
Alternatively we could turn to China or Russia as models for state-level benevolent wealth transfers. The latter nation, for example, has just offered to supply fertilizer cost-free to the Global South. I would like to think the human pendulum is swinging inexorably in that direction.
This makes sense thank you, sharing!
Good thoughts. I do take issue with tying "Smart Growth" and the shift to electric vehicles together. The whole point of Smart Growth as I understand it is to build cities that don't require private automobiles for personal mobility. The shift to EV's would be an afterthought if Smart Growth principles held greater sway.
The population service capacity is defined by the planet (Earth) and is 529 Million as stated in the Goblet of the Truth p.LX1X and p.117 v.5. See http://goblet-of-the-truth.org/ and see Interpretation of the Population Table 2009 (http://www.futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier/Interpretation_of_the_Population_Table_2009) that arrives at a similar number of 563 Million as the service limit for the Earth.
GOTT p.LXIX:
... gardens and greenhouses. And still your efforts to counteract all the disasters are in vain, as are your attempts to put a brake on this development, because it is becoming greater and greater and more catastrophic with every day, indeed with every hour and every minute, standing in relation to the rapid increase in overpopulation. Therefore, you human beings of Earth want to resurrect all that has been destroyed so far because of your guilt and irrational- ity as well as irresponsibility, just as you want to keep what has remained whole, whereby however all your efforts in this direction are in vain because you do not come to the right conclusion in rationality. And the right decision is solely and alone this, that the overpopulation be stopped through a worldwide regulation of births and in this wise your earthly humanity be reduced to an extent that is appropriate for the planet and for nature, in which case this extent has been defined in accordance with nature and the planet for the whole Earth at 529 million human beings.
p.117 v.5:
5) And as you create descendants, it shall be done in the measure of insight (rationality) so that the standard mea- sure of the number of all peoples (humankind) does not get out of control in a very bad wise and result in immoderateness (overpopulation) and the world and its weathers, the appearance (nature) and all life on Earth do not suffer great and lasting damage (destruction of the environment/destruction of the climate/extinction of forms of life/wars/crimes, etc.); therefore, the recommendation of insight (rationality) and of control over extent is given for obedience (following) so that no calamity may come over you and your world; consequently, it is recommended that you keep yourselves within bounds (limits) and manage (monitor) the standard measure of the number of all peoples and that you undertake (carry out) a measurement (census) every certain number of years so that the measure of all inhabitants of Earth does not become too great and remains within the num- ber of the maintainable (supportable) without leading to harm (529 million).
The technology for clean safe energy is here now with the JMCC WING distributed grid @ 500 MW per unit.
See: https://www.jmccanneyscience.com/jmccwinggenfarmranchsubpage
The book “McCanney Wing GeneratorTM Distributed Energy National Grid WORLD ENERGY PROJECT” states on pg.10:
“… The next round of investment was to the next level with a 500 foot tall model and finally we would go to the final size of the full scale 1000 foot tall model capable of producing the equivalent of a full size 500 MegaWatt nuclear generator. I had the OK on the engineering end of the project from my private contacts that these were completely feasible to construct on this scale and my own work involved the physics and engineering of a system that could consistently produce this level of energy even at lower wind speeds unlike the 3 blade predecessor “wind turbines” that at most would put out a few megawatts of electricity on a good day and possibly only one tenth of that on an average day.”
pg.45-46:
“The construction of only 300 of the large 1000 foot WING GENERATOR towers in high wind areas of the United States would provide us with eternal free energy for the cost of maintenance. By contrast it would take over 77 million of the 1.5 megawatt 3-blade generators. We can convert to wind and transport the energy from wind areas to the rest of the country on the currently existing power grid (NO SMART GRID NEEDED). The cost of construction of the WING GENERATOR towers would be less than a few nuclear reactors and the social and economic benefits would be passed on immediately. Conversion to a truly electric transportation system with free electric non- polluting power should have obvious benefits. Clearly this will not exactly be popular in certain circles.
If look at the book pg.41-45, will see images of very large ferris wheels already operating. So the tech for the wheels is available now!
The creator of the JMCC WING mentions the JMCC WING in his Science Hour podcast for 8-Sept-2022 and says BIG Energy prevents the rollout of the JMCC WING. Listen here: https://www.jmccanneyscience.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/JamesMcCanneyScienceHour_September_08_2022.mp3
This is lovely and smart. Thank you! 🙌
James, have you seen this...... https://endmedicaltyranny.substack.com/p/novavax-being-used-to-quash-vaccine?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Thank for writing this. These are the kind of solutions I long to hear. I will have to follow you more closely, as these are the types of solutions I have been waiting to hear from Daniel Schmachtenberger. He has been so good at describing the problem, but I had yet to hear him detail solutions.
I would like to take some courses. I am work 10 hour days and can not be in front of my computer at specified times. I see that there are concessions to "missing classes," with lectures videos available, but this offer does not seem to be a solution to never being available for class times. I apologize for leaving this comment here. Not sure how else to communicate.
One more question, how do you/I deal with the anxiety created through learning how bad and quickly the environment is being polluted/degraded and how much corruption/capture is allowing it all to occur?
Thank you.
Brilliant, thank you, James!
Liberal Democracies will die before Regenerative anything develops. There will be no EPA, no CDC, no NATO. After these fall, let’s talk about what is true and what is fiction.
I am grateful to James Lyons-Weiler for sharpening my perspective on "sustainability" as an historical moment in the swing away from conservationism. If I read him aright, Lyons-Weiler is proposing that as the pendulum swings further in its return course, we are likely to turn to individualistic solutions that "encourage and support the thriving of the things and processes that might be lost under 'Sustainability'". (I note that Lyons-Weiler twice mentions "Limited Liability" in his bulleted list of "Challenges, Sources of Issues and Solutions".)
Through a voluntary system of "transaction donations" - which amounts to old-fashioned philanthropy meted out for specific goals - the consumer supposedly becomes aware of the link between personal expenditures and human misery on a tax-free and de-bureacratized basis. But what is the source of such awareness other then public relations firms, journalistic and academic conduits, and government assessments? All these information-providers function through institutional mediation, which must be funded somehow.
Furthermore, if ever these private donations were to enter a country like the DRC they would be subject to systematic predation (ie theft), such that it would take a well-heeled team of forensic accountants to prevent the boodle from disappearing before it reached the intended recipients.
Lyons-Weiler writes: "Knowing that my cell phone purchase or use is leading to reforestation and helping to underwrite the regenerative health care of people who worked to make it a reality provides a sense of balance and longevity to a regenerative cycle of good." In this wording there is a confusion of levels, where the sentence starts off on subjective note: "Knowing that...provides a sense of balance..." But right at this point, making use of the dual meaning of balance as personal "poise" and objective "equilibrium", Lyons-Weiler adds "longevity to a regenerative cycle..." Yet just knowing something cannot in itself bring equilibrium to a complex system.
So why this confusion? Why imagine a flow of wealth from some percentage of conscience-stricken consumers flowing in an uncoordinated fashion to a mass of raw-material producers, whose wretchedness is kept at a distance by corporate collusion? If the pendulum continues its contrary movement from participant democracy towards totalitarianism, people in meaningful numbers are likely to become insensitive to the impact they have on distant strangers. Those still able to afford electric vehicles after 2030 may not feel much satisfaction in the knowledge "that their small sacrifice is a gift to others and the future of the planet." Fascism is known to blunt such fine sentiments, which bodes ill for philanthropy in general.
Lyons-Weiler employs two metaphors to characterize historic change: (1) the pendulum with its predictable arc; and (2) a fleet of ships that cam slowly change course in any direction the commander chooses. The first usage is mechanistic (and thus pessimistic) about the prospect of human freedom, whereas the second emphasizes the role of mind and will in opposing the autonomous tides of change. Combining both metaphors is the prospect of a pendulum swinging from a beam on a storm-tossed ship. If I remember right, the pendulum will not deviate from course, regardless of the craft's maneuvers. In other words historical inevitability trumps human volition.
The bearing of Lyons-Weiler's discussion stems from the first metaphor; but in searching for a happy solution, he resorts to the second. thus fending off resignation for another day.
Alternatively we could turn to China or Russia as models for state-level benevolent wealth transfers. The latter nation, for example, has just offered to supply fertilizer cost-free to the Global South. I would like to think the human pendulum is swinging inexorably in that direction.