3 ms·

> which in the end will likely just escalate to literal all-out civil war. Why though? Purely hypothetical as I would prefer to not end up on a list. But lets

> which in the end will likely just escalate to literal all-out civil war. Why though? Purely hypothetical as I would prefer to not end up on a list. But lets say hypothetically, if people started targetting Oil&Gas board members and lobbyists. Do you actually believe that there would be a significant percentage of the population against it, to the point of precipitating us/them factions? Or would it just create fear and intimidation of key policy makers and light speed business plan transitions away from hydrocarbon economies? For clarity most of these companies already have plans in place they are just waiting it out because there is still another 30 to 40 years horizon of 'profitable' extraction.

blooalien 3y ago
> "Why though?" From what I've seen, humanity in general appears to be gravitating toward further and further political and ideological extremes, and corporations / governments / media appear all too happy to "profit" from encouraging those divisions and capitalizing on them in any way they can. To approve wars, tax expenditures / shelters, government spending, whatever all they do to gather more of everything for themselves. That combined with "eco-terrorism" feels like a dangerous path to me. One that could easily go way out of control entirely too quickly once started. Especially with all the other craziness that's goin' on in the world right now, with Russia "saber-rattling" their nukes, North Korea tryin' to get nukes goin', climate change, growing scarcity of certain super-important resources (water especially), etc. All seems like it's leading to pretty certain violence sooner or later, if humanity don't start lookin' for some better options real hard, real fast. > ... "as I would prefer to not end up on a list." Pretty sure we're all already "on a list" somewhere if Snowden's "revelations" taught us anything. "They" are watching at all times. ;) What you really don't want is to get flagged for a "closer look".
- DoingIsLearning 3y ago
  Looking from a distance you are living a very unique media situation in the US that I feel doesn't necessarily extend across the whole globe. I do agree with you that water wars will be the principal source of world order instability.

blooalien 3y ago

> "Why though?" From what I've seen, humanity in general appears to be gravitating toward further and further political and ideological extremes, and corporations / governments / media appear all too happy to "profit" from encouraging those divisions and capitalizing on them in any way they can. To approve wars, tax expenditures / shelters, government spending, whatever all they do to gather more of everything for themselves. That combined with "eco-terrorism" feels like a dangerous path to me. One that could easily go way out of control entirely too quickly once started. Especially with all the other craziness that's goin' on in the world right now, with Russia "saber-rattling" their nukes, North Korea tryin' to get nukes goin', climate change, growing scarcity of certain super-important resources (water especially), etc. All seems like it's leading to pretty certain violence sooner or later, if humanity don't start lookin' for some better options real hard, real fast. > ... "as I would prefer to not end up on a list." Pretty sure we're all already "on a list" somewhere if Snowden's "revelations" taught us anything. "They" are watching at all times. ;) What you really don't want is to get flagged for a "closer look".

DoingIsLearning 3y ago
Looking from a distance you are living a very unique media situation in the US that I feel doesn't necessarily extend across the whole globe. I do agree with you that water wars will be the principal source of world order instability.