In the absence of something better to do, people will erect toll booths both actual and metaphorical because it is easier than matching supply to demand. One of the chief purposes of government is to manage this process, to limit the number of toll booth builders. Our government promises the ever shrinking trickle of young people that they can Build Their Own Tollbooth and to continuously petition the government for more opportunities to erect tollbooths.
This perhaps becomes more complicated when we consider international relations. The US in my view is happy with European overregulation and some elements of the spastic Chinese method of government because it limits competition. It creates a big sucking effect for capital; to the extent that other places are poor destinations for investment, the US is happy to be the marginal winner. This also helps to explain why deregulation in the US has run into limits of motivation.
Why would you care about going to war with an army of tollbooth operators to build high speed rail in the US when China can build another one in a more high productivity industrial region for significantly less money? The counter-argument to that is that in the US, you can at least in theory will own the railway, whereas in China the government will always reserve the right to expropriate you.
“What holds up progress are people who can raise their status by holding up progress.” And thus what holds up progress is a public that accords high status to officials who hold up progress.
Ignoring actual human progress (improved mental health, social cohesion, reduction of violence & corruption, etc) will always contribute to hindering technological progress. We get in our own way through our many flaws. I find it interesting that progress discussions almost always default to technological advancement.
Scott Alexander shows the issues that he and the "rationalists" are weak in with his first line on taxis. He just assumes that it must have an advantage over owned vehicle's without showing the work. The same can be said for Taxis now, they can be used 24-7 as opposed to your own car. Yet most people still own cars and don't use taxis if they can afford it. Please explain the different use case and show your work. Economics will win out for whichever is most cost-effective. An analogy is male Formal wear. If you are only going to one prom/wedding it makes sense to rent. Once you have a need for formal wear at least 1-2/year you soon buy. Male tuxedos can be used for 40 years with minimal care. Just claiming rental is best isn't enough. As I heard some economist say "The question is always do you rent or buy" cf marriage vs dating. Also, all life is sales and marketing, see prior.
Reading Scott Alexander's first line on taxis reminds me of the WEF slogan "you will own nothing and be happy." The idea that shifting to self-driving taxis will allow parking lots to be converted to green space and homes reflects a top-down, technocratic, central planning mentality that the history of Soviet central planning has shown is a dead end, and yet he clings to it. Everything he says about solar and wind, and especially the assertion that "you get a Moore's law like growth curve" from mass manufacturing of solar panels, has been convincingly challenged by Mark Mills, who is a physicist and engineer rather than a shrink like Alexander. If Alexander concluded from the Progress Studies conference that solar and wind are superior to nuclear, they should rename the field "Regress Studies" in honor of the quaint windmills I remember from my short layover (shorter than Caplan's layover in Abu Dhabi) in the Netherlands.
As regards the energy claims, Vaclav Smil has been pouring some much-needed cold water on a lot of the overconfident optimism and explaining why many of those "going hyperbolic and getting cheaper all the time!" charts are prepared in misleading ways (e.g., low published costs that don't account for massive subsidies.)
In particular it really helps to understand the underlying mechanisms of what has or can drive progress in a particular sector. With Moore's Law, the mechanism was primarily "improvements in miniaturization", and as Feynman explained, the sector started with enough "room at the bottom" for decades of progress.
The situation with photovoltaics is totally different, it's all about surface area exposed to sunlight, there is nothing to shrink. Economies of scale for things made of atoms eventually hit diminishing marginal returns as the marginal cost can't get lower that the cost of inputs (e.g., pure silicon), and it's not like anyone has been leaving exploitable manufacturing scale gains on the table.
On the other hand, nuclear power in the US is FAR more expensive than it needs to be. You could use "deep fission" (a new company, not remotely a new idea) to drill a "well" a mile down into bedrock, put a "default failsafe control-rods-in" HPWR on crane cables and lower it to the bottom, fill the thing with water letting gravity do the pressurization work for free without moving parts, and if you made a whole grid of a dozens or hundreds of the reactor-wells, or even did some breeding and had a reprocessing facility on site, well, you could probably power the whole East Coast with zero emissions from a few square miles and for a fraction of current costs and whether the sun shines or wind blows or not, and arguably safer than any plant currently in operation.
In this and many other areas, "The main mechanism that can drive progress is simply stopping the people who are stopping the progress."
I think the biggest thing left out of the hype about low cost of solar power is the large extra costs because of the variability. If you only want electricity when the sun is shining, it's pretty cheap. But if you also want electricity at night, it requires a lot of additional expense, and solar power is no longer cheap. The places that have gone most in on alternative energy, such as California and Germany, have very expensive electricity.
Yes it seems intuitive to me that there are large savings available with scaling nuclear energy costs. I wonder if anyone has written a paper on the cost potential of nuclear given investment and deregulation
You could fill a library with those papers. But a key formation in the progressive playbook is "fact-value transformation fraud by chutzpah", that is, when they cannot altogether prohibit something they dislike, they make it very difficult and expensive to do, and then argue that even people with different values that support the activity should still agree to oppose it on purely pragmatic grounds, because it's so darn difficult and expensive to do, as if that difficulty was a fact of nature and beyond human control. This play is used in the criminal justice and environmental contexts all the time, sometimes in the national security context. Archimeded said, "Give me a big enough lever and a place to stand on and I could move the world." The progressives say, "By pressing a big enough thumb on the scale, I can make the economic case for anything!"
Not disagreeing, but... The part about converting parking spaces to green space is an attractive idea. In America, we have more parking spaces for cars than housing units for humans. In general parking is vastly over promoted.
Parking spaces would not get converted to green spaces. Someone owns that real estate. The parking slots are mandated by law in all US states for office/shopping/apartment complexes. As a developer/owner if I do not need those spaces for the tenants I am building on the space. More office/apartments/shopping pays better than green spaces. To even think that green spaces would replace parking spaces takes a certain kind of naivety.
Bingo. Likewise all those single lane residential roads with street parking aren't magically going to get unwidened, they will simply become two lanes roads or left vacant as zero chance the government is going to just give the adjoining landowner the aforementioned street parking area free property.
A lot of governments did this temporarily during covid lockdowns, giving restaurants, bars, cafes, etc. the option to put outdoor seating under "tents" on that pavement, whether it was formerly used for parking or driving. Most of that has been reversed by now, but surprisingly some of it is still in place.
Sure, converting parking spaces to green space is an attractive idea, but the question is whether enough people are willing to give up self-owned vehicles for self-driving taxis on a voluntary basis, and if not, is forcing people to do so the only way Alexander's utopian vision can be realized? On paper, I'm the ideal candidate for self-driving taxis. I'm retired, and I use my car about once a week on average, mainly for grocery shopping and hair/medical appointments. It would be cheaper for me to rely on taxis or Uber/Lyft. Also, I don't enjoy driving, and I purchased a car after many years of living without a car because I moved to a place where not having a car is inconvenient. Still, having a car in my garage gives me a feeling of independence, driving presumably helps me maintain my hand-eye coordination, and I get a sense of accomplishment every time I get to and from my destination safely by driving my own car. I get the feeling that in Alexander's utopian world, we would all live like babies, being cared for and having our diapers changed by AI-driven robots and taxis. Is that really a self-fulfilling life for human beings? And Alexander's expertise is human psychology!
"Nobody wants to ban self-driving car ownership, but some people do want to nudge the marginal consumer into robotaxis so they can reclaim slightly more than half of the parking lots ... ." This is classic top-down speak. What happens if nudging doesn't work?
Maybe. Seems like a really big assumption to me. I'm inclined to think "some people" are mostly academics and activists who don't have a lot of power. Either way, there's surely a lot of uncertainty in the future of personal vehicles.
Taxis without the chauffeur are assumed to be cheaper. Will it be enough cheaper? IDK.
I don't know that shared cars (without the rental counter) have made much penetration but surely the electric bikes and scooters have a huge penetration. I've got to believe the driverless shared car will do better than taxis and shared cars but not as well as the bikes and scooters.
Progress is being held up by the Powers that be: who are they?
ATTENTION to the year of this quote, 2006: 15 years before the haccines! Then read who said it:
"We will find something or cause it; a pandemic that targets certain people, a real economic crisis or not, a virus that will affect the old or the elderly, it does not matter; the weak and the fearful will succumb. The stupid will believe it and ask to be treated. We will have taken care of having planned the treatment, a treatment that will be the solution. The selection of idiots will therefore be done by itself: they will go to the slaughterhouse alone."
Then, show that every single person on the planet should be suing Pfizer and Moderna for deliberately hiding human DNA in their vaccines, and Pfizer, for injecting an undisclosed carcinogenic monkey virus (SV40) sequence into the cell nucleus of the clueless biohacked, as officially recognized by Health Canada !!!
Didn’t like that topic? Show 10 secs in the middle of this video (who doesn’t have 10 seconds for you):
(caveat about the beginning: pot destroys your brain + “Raises Risk of Heart Attack and Stroke”)
9/11: two "planes", yet 8 towers down, including the unblemished Deutsche Bank. WTC7 imploded, free falling on its footprint, in a controlled demolition. It was out of reach, and all 7 World Trade Center towers needed to be rebuilt, not the closer towers not belonging to World Trade Center...
The “owner” took an insurance policy for the WTC against terrorism, months before, when no one was taking them … he didn’t show up for work on 9/11 … just as his 2 grown up siblings.
The inside information about the FUTURE 9/11 event helped masons make trillions by shorting the stock exchange: the records were deleted by the SEC so they wouldn't be prosecuted !!!
- J6: The false flag operation of the fake riot was planned, incited and guided by 200 infiltrated FBI mason agents, who broke into the Capitol !!! All intel agencies (CIA, FBI, NSA) were founded by masons and are run by them for their own nefarious goals.
In 2022, the same mason-plot was copy-pasted to disband the demonstrations of millions of Brazilians against the stolen elections through the rigged voting machines owned by mason Soros:
- At least since the 90s, vaccines are weaponized to reduce the population, for example adding hCG to infertilize women: lab detected in 30 countries, and overpassing the FDA 10 ng limit to human DNA “contamination” (tampering) by 2000%, thus causing neuro-damage (autism, asperger, tics, dyslexia in 29% of kids, etc.) and childhood cancer epidemic (n.b. leukemia, non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas). Check SoundChoice.org or videos.
- COVID was designed as a primer for even more lethal COVID haccines:
“Only” 0.33% of excess deaths in the first 2 years (ca. 1% of the haxxed, mainly elderly). 40 million people killed by the lethal injections... so far.
Yet, the most important impact of the COVID haccines, population-wise, is lifelong infertility.
Births keep dropping even more dramatically. The infertility bomb will fully explode in 10-20 years: a huge percentage of the babies of the haxxed pregnants and the haxxed children/adolescents could have become lifelong infertile.
If your unhaxxed children evade self-replicating haxxines (replicons) and marry haxxed ones, they will probably not have children ... just as planned: the only choice deliberately left for them will be infertile DNA-designed transhumanized babies, for an ever dependency on immoral IVF (for every IVF-born, 25 are lost or murdered), with a prohibitive cost (planned increasing prices of carbon-footprint monthly quotas tied to Central Bank Digital Currencies in their 15-min cities, where we become slaves to be hunted down in slo-mo):
2. There's proof of deliberate geoengineering to increase global temperatures and droughts, and decrease albedo by dissolving clouds with satellite and Weather Radars’ Electro-Magnetic Frequencies.
3. Life involves a carbon cycle. A war on carbon is a war on life, causing food scarcity, increase in food prices and famines. Decarbonization is part of the plan to exterminate 95% of us.
- Apart from sin-empowered demons, what is their main source of power? NOT a coincidence that the USA left dollar convertibility to gold in 1971, precisely triggering the exponential government deficit coupled with the trade deficit and inflation.
This is the Achilles’ heel of all nations: the SSS (Satanic Secret Societies such as masonry) counterfeit paper money and digital assets and launder trillions with which they buy Banks, seats in the Federal Reserve (the only private-run Central Bank in the world), political careers and parties, puppeticians, judges, listed corporations, media, healthcare corporations and organizations, universities, foundations, etc.
Taking down central banking doesn't solve the problem. Their source of money is counterfeiting, fractional reserve banking and financial instruments (e.g. derivatives, debt over debt, compound interest above real growth, etc.).
They can act as long as the majority keeps daydreaming. Their worst nightmare is that people wake up, find out all the crimes, and seek justice/revenge. They are only 8000: 1 against a million. They are scared and know they are walking a tight rope until CBDC full digi-tatorship.
We've got a very small window of opportunity to fight or ... die (they want to murder 95% of us).
President John Quincy Adams: “Masonry ought forever to be abolished. It is wrong - essentially wrong - a seed of evil, which can never produce any good.”
"Self-driving taxis have a big advantage over self-driving self-owned-cars: they can operate 24-7 and never have to park."
Never? Most are going to be parked for at least part of the night. Let's hope they aren't roaming all night. The advantage is it should take way less than half the cars for those who switch because far fewer will sit idle. They might also park at unused venues like a sports stadium or in the suburbs.
We have to also look at negative influences. If these self-driving vehicles are enough cheaper to attract drivers, they might also attract people currently riding buses and subways.
Call me a luddite if you will, but I think the problem of deepfakes crafted with AI is real, as is what you might call the Robert Reich problem (ie, social media gives a big platform to demagogues who play on the worst impulses of the Too Online set). I mean...not that I want to turn the tech industry's prospects over to Gavin Newsome and his pals, but at the same time, I think some of the shine has worn off of 90's era techno-optimism.
While I appreciate McCormick's argument, I think he is somewhat ignoring the fact that petroleum got vastly more expensive in the 1970s, and not just because of regulation, which I would suspect wound up driving a lot of research and engineering work into finding substitutes for it rather than driving productivity related work.
"I predict that there will be a tipping point at which driving your own car will be considered a scary thing to do relative to riding in a driverless car."
I don't think that will honestly be the tipping point that drives this shift though sure it would naturally happen eventually. The tipping point is cost, i.e. what everyone likes to ignore, including economists, is taxis (or equiv like Uber or even hourly car rents) still cost more both in money and time than car ownership . Until cars are a luxury item (ignoring mass transit which they aren't competing against) in the transportation convenience market, like personal helicopters, people are going to continue to own them.
My brother lives in a rural area and risks a DUI daily because he has zero interest in $100 Uber roundtrip to the bar on top of a two hours of waiting each time. His twenty year old Honda Civic doesn't run him $500 a month, much less $3000. I live in a dense urban area and make three to four trips a day which would run me $190 a day minimum total, my annualized car TCO cost is $45 a day, tell me again why I would rent/taxi?
Robot taxis are a great choice in any large city, providing 1) they're safer than the average driver (which isn't hard, considering that the "average driver" seems to be well below average), 2) arrive in a timely fashion to pick you up, and 3) are overall fairly far below the costs of owning a car.
However, I usually had the devil's own tme convincing college students that roundabouts were better for traffic than 4-way intersections. Robot taxis seem to be one of those innivations that some people don't like for visceral, but unexplainable reasons.
In the absence of something better to do, people will erect toll booths both actual and metaphorical because it is easier than matching supply to demand. One of the chief purposes of government is to manage this process, to limit the number of toll booth builders. Our government promises the ever shrinking trickle of young people that they can Build Their Own Tollbooth and to continuously petition the government for more opportunities to erect tollbooths.
This perhaps becomes more complicated when we consider international relations. The US in my view is happy with European overregulation and some elements of the spastic Chinese method of government because it limits competition. It creates a big sucking effect for capital; to the extent that other places are poor destinations for investment, the US is happy to be the marginal winner. This also helps to explain why deregulation in the US has run into limits of motivation.
Why would you care about going to war with an army of tollbooth operators to build high speed rail in the US when China can build another one in a more high productivity industrial region for significantly less money? The counter-argument to that is that in the US, you can at least in theory will own the railway, whereas in China the government will always reserve the right to expropriate you.
"What holds up progress are people who can raise their status by holding up progress."
That is key. That is what must change if our societies are to reach their potential.
“What holds up progress are people who can raise their status by holding up progress.” And thus what holds up progress is a public that accords high status to officials who hold up progress.
Ignoring actual human progress (improved mental health, social cohesion, reduction of violence & corruption, etc) will always contribute to hindering technological progress. We get in our own way through our many flaws. I find it interesting that progress discussions almost always default to technological advancement.
Scott Alexander shows the issues that he and the "rationalists" are weak in with his first line on taxis. He just assumes that it must have an advantage over owned vehicle's without showing the work. The same can be said for Taxis now, they can be used 24-7 as opposed to your own car. Yet most people still own cars and don't use taxis if they can afford it. Please explain the different use case and show your work. Economics will win out for whichever is most cost-effective. An analogy is male Formal wear. If you are only going to one prom/wedding it makes sense to rent. Once you have a need for formal wear at least 1-2/year you soon buy. Male tuxedos can be used for 40 years with minimal care. Just claiming rental is best isn't enough. As I heard some economist say "The question is always do you rent or buy" cf marriage vs dating. Also, all life is sales and marketing, see prior.
Reading Scott Alexander's first line on taxis reminds me of the WEF slogan "you will own nothing and be happy." The idea that shifting to self-driving taxis will allow parking lots to be converted to green space and homes reflects a top-down, technocratic, central planning mentality that the history of Soviet central planning has shown is a dead end, and yet he clings to it. Everything he says about solar and wind, and especially the assertion that "you get a Moore's law like growth curve" from mass manufacturing of solar panels, has been convincingly challenged by Mark Mills, who is a physicist and engineer rather than a shrink like Alexander. If Alexander concluded from the Progress Studies conference that solar and wind are superior to nuclear, they should rename the field "Regress Studies" in honor of the quaint windmills I remember from my short layover (shorter than Caplan's layover in Abu Dhabi) in the Netherlands.
As regards the energy claims, Vaclav Smil has been pouring some much-needed cold water on a lot of the overconfident optimism and explaining why many of those "going hyperbolic and getting cheaper all the time!" charts are prepared in misleading ways (e.g., low published costs that don't account for massive subsidies.)
In particular it really helps to understand the underlying mechanisms of what has or can drive progress in a particular sector. With Moore's Law, the mechanism was primarily "improvements in miniaturization", and as Feynman explained, the sector started with enough "room at the bottom" for decades of progress.
The situation with photovoltaics is totally different, it's all about surface area exposed to sunlight, there is nothing to shrink. Economies of scale for things made of atoms eventually hit diminishing marginal returns as the marginal cost can't get lower that the cost of inputs (e.g., pure silicon), and it's not like anyone has been leaving exploitable manufacturing scale gains on the table.
On the other hand, nuclear power in the US is FAR more expensive than it needs to be. You could use "deep fission" (a new company, not remotely a new idea) to drill a "well" a mile down into bedrock, put a "default failsafe control-rods-in" HPWR on crane cables and lower it to the bottom, fill the thing with water letting gravity do the pressurization work for free without moving parts, and if you made a whole grid of a dozens or hundreds of the reactor-wells, or even did some breeding and had a reprocessing facility on site, well, you could probably power the whole East Coast with zero emissions from a few square miles and for a fraction of current costs and whether the sun shines or wind blows or not, and arguably safer than any plant currently in operation.
In this and many other areas, "The main mechanism that can drive progress is simply stopping the people who are stopping the progress."
I think the biggest thing left out of the hype about low cost of solar power is the large extra costs because of the variability. If you only want electricity when the sun is shining, it's pretty cheap. But if you also want electricity at night, it requires a lot of additional expense, and solar power is no longer cheap. The places that have gone most in on alternative energy, such as California and Germany, have very expensive electricity.
Singapore too, though their panels are being installed in Australia.
Yes it seems intuitive to me that there are large savings available with scaling nuclear energy costs. I wonder if anyone has written a paper on the cost potential of nuclear given investment and deregulation
You could fill a library with those papers. But a key formation in the progressive playbook is "fact-value transformation fraud by chutzpah", that is, when they cannot altogether prohibit something they dislike, they make it very difficult and expensive to do, and then argue that even people with different values that support the activity should still agree to oppose it on purely pragmatic grounds, because it's so darn difficult and expensive to do, as if that difficulty was a fact of nature and beyond human control. This play is used in the criminal justice and environmental contexts all the time, sometimes in the national security context. Archimeded said, "Give me a big enough lever and a place to stand on and I could move the world." The progressives say, "By pressing a big enough thumb on the scale, I can make the economic case for anything!"
Right, maybe they can’t change the numerator but they can almost always shrink/blow up the denominator of some metric until it suits The Message
Not disagreeing, but... The part about converting parking spaces to green space is an attractive idea. In America, we have more parking spaces for cars than housing units for humans. In general parking is vastly over promoted.
Parking spaces would not get converted to green spaces. Someone owns that real estate. The parking slots are mandated by law in all US states for office/shopping/apartment complexes. As a developer/owner if I do not need those spaces for the tenants I am building on the space. More office/apartments/shopping pays better than green spaces. To even think that green spaces would replace parking spaces takes a certain kind of naivety.
Bingo. Likewise all those single lane residential roads with street parking aren't magically going to get unwidened, they will simply become two lanes roads or left vacant as zero chance the government is going to just give the adjoining landowner the aforementioned street parking area free property.
A lot of governments did this temporarily during covid lockdowns, giving restaurants, bars, cafes, etc. the option to put outdoor seating under "tents" on that pavement, whether it was formerly used for parking or driving. Most of that has been reversed by now, but surprisingly some of it is still in place.
Sure, converting parking spaces to green space is an attractive idea, but the question is whether enough people are willing to give up self-owned vehicles for self-driving taxis on a voluntary basis, and if not, is forcing people to do so the only way Alexander's utopian vision can be realized? On paper, I'm the ideal candidate for self-driving taxis. I'm retired, and I use my car about once a week on average, mainly for grocery shopping and hair/medical appointments. It would be cheaper for me to rely on taxis or Uber/Lyft. Also, I don't enjoy driving, and I purchased a car after many years of living without a car because I moved to a place where not having a car is inconvenient. Still, having a car in my garage gives me a feeling of independence, driving presumably helps me maintain my hand-eye coordination, and I get a sense of accomplishment every time I get to and from my destination safely by driving my own car. I get the feeling that in Alexander's utopian world, we would all live like babies, being cared for and having our diapers changed by AI-driven robots and taxis. Is that really a self-fulfilling life for human beings? And Alexander's expertise is human psychology!
It's a prediction but I don't know why you think it is top down.
"Nobody wants to ban self-driving car ownership, but some people do want to nudge the marginal consumer into robotaxis so they can reclaim slightly more than half of the parking lots ... ." This is classic top-down speak. What happens if nudging doesn't work?
Some people = too down?
Maybe. Seems like a really big assumption to me. I'm inclined to think "some people" are mostly academics and activists who don't have a lot of power. Either way, there's surely a lot of uncertainty in the future of personal vehicles.
Taxis without the chauffeur are assumed to be cheaper. Will it be enough cheaper? IDK.
I don't know that shared cars (without the rental counter) have made much penetration but surely the electric bikes and scooters have a huge penetration. I've got to believe the driverless shared car will do better than taxis and shared cars but not as well as the bikes and scooters.
What’s holding up character progress? “Broken record: Take all public money out of university funding. Then take it out of all education.”
We want more role models like Michael Strong and fewer like Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. That would be progress.
Back to reading Albion’s Seed. Learning about the Puritans is more interesting than discussing technology progress.
Progress is being held up by the Powers that be: who are they?
ATTENTION to the year of this quote, 2006: 15 years before the haccines! Then read who said it:
"We will find something or cause it; a pandemic that targets certain people, a real economic crisis or not, a virus that will affect the old or the elderly, it does not matter; the weak and the fearful will succumb. The stupid will believe it and ask to be treated. We will have taken care of having planned the treatment, a treatment that will be the solution. The selection of idiots will therefore be done by itself: they will go to the slaughterhouse alone."
- Illuminati Attali:
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/attali-illuminati-finest-quotes
What’s your best way to wake-up those who don’t want to open their eyes?
Please share your most effective wake-up strategies.
The more the awakened, the sooner this nightmare will be over!
The most effective strategy is asking about the person’s opinion on some of these topics:
Would you be interested in the story of how a father got 20 million dollars from the Government?
Or, show the video of the baby seizures:
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/autism-day-shall-we-celebrate-the
That usually works, especially with young couples having children.
If the person doesn’t want to discuss injections, then food is a good start:
Why is food poisoning legal?
How Rumsfeld forced the approval of Aspartame.
Artificial sweeteners, MSG, PFAS, Glyphosate ... go organic!
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/why-is-food-poisoning-legal
Then I’d follow with "Are you opened to see if the actual data matches your opinion?"
Could you please explain why no country did this and why no country promoted the cures?:
http://c19early.com
http://bit.ly/research2000
Shortcomings of the Pharma industry?:
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/system-failure-ai-exposes-zero-government
Then, show that every single person on the planet should be suing Pfizer and Moderna for deliberately hiding human DNA in their vaccines, and Pfizer, for injecting an undisclosed carcinogenic monkey virus (SV40) sequence into the cell nucleus of the clueless biohacked, as officially recognized by Health Canada !!!
Didn’t like that topic? Show 10 secs in the middle of this video (who doesn’t have 10 seconds for you):
https://odysee.com/@ImpossiblyWackedOutWorld:f/WTC-7-Free-Falling:8
(caveat about the beginning: pot destroys your brain + “Raises Risk of Heart Attack and Stroke”)
9/11: two "planes", yet 8 towers down, including the unblemished Deutsche Bank. WTC7 imploded, free falling on its footprint, in a controlled demolition. It was out of reach, and all 7 World Trade Center towers needed to be rebuilt, not the closer towers not belonging to World Trade Center...
The “owner” took an insurance policy for the WTC against terrorism, months before, when no one was taking them … he didn’t show up for work on 9/11 … just as his 2 grown up siblings.
The inside information about the FUTURE 9/11 event helped masons make trillions by shorting the stock exchange: the records were deleted by the SEC so they wouldn't be prosecuted !!!
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/911-2-planes-3-towers
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/107-911
There's a plan to murder 95% of the global population by 2050… written on the masonic Georgia guide-stones: “Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 … ”:
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/depopulation-or-extermination
- J6: The false flag operation of the fake riot was planned, incited and guided by 200 infiltrated FBI mason agents, who broke into the Capitol !!! All intel agencies (CIA, FBI, NSA) were founded by masons and are run by them for their own nefarious goals.
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/j6-what-you-need-to-know
In 2022, the same mason-plot was copy-pasted to disband the demonstrations of millions of Brazilians against the stolen elections through the rigged voting machines owned by mason Soros:
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/the-2020-american-coup
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/dominion-over-us
Weaponization of migration to steal elections and destroy nations
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/weaponization-of-migration
2024 Elections: bought or stolen? Both!
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/2024-elections-bought-or-stolen
It's important that people share, not the article, but the information! I'm expendable. Saving the free world, is not!
Kamala’ secret:
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/rogan-trump-interview-historical
Free 100 redpill movies and documentaries:
(don't miss the 1st one, 10 min at 2x, an amazing tool to start a discussion):
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/wake-up-videos
- At least since the 90s, vaccines are weaponized to reduce the population, for example adding hCG to infertilize women: lab detected in 30 countries, and overpassing the FDA 10 ng limit to human DNA “contamination” (tampering) by 2000%, thus causing neuro-damage (autism, asperger, tics, dyslexia in 29% of kids, etc.) and childhood cancer epidemic (n.b. leukemia, non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas). Check SoundChoice.org or videos.
- COVID was designed as a primer for even more lethal COVID haccines:
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/the-real-covid-timeline
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/not-vaccine-not-gene-therapy-just
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/what-do-bioweapons-have-to-do-with
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/you-are-anti-haccine
“Only” 0.33% of excess deaths in the first 2 years (ca. 1% of the haxxed, mainly elderly). 40 million people killed by the lethal injections... so far.
Yet, the most important impact of the COVID haccines, population-wise, is lifelong infertility.
Births keep dropping even more dramatically. The infertility bomb will fully explode in 10-20 years: a huge percentage of the babies of the haxxed pregnants and the haxxed children/adolescents could have become lifelong infertile.
If your unhaxxed children evade self-replicating haxxines (replicons) and marry haxxed ones, they will probably not have children ... just as planned: the only choice deliberately left for them will be infertile DNA-designed transhumanized babies, for an ever dependency on immoral IVF (for every IVF-born, 25 are lost or murdered), with a prohibitive cost (planned increasing prices of carbon-footprint monthly quotas tied to Central Bank Digital Currencies in their 15-min cities, where we become slaves to be hunted down in slo-mo):
- You’ll go nowhere and you’ll be happy:
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/2050-youll-go-nowhere-and-youll-be
Elon's top secret: EVs cause cancer
Go green with gasoline!
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/electric-vehicles-cause-cancer
- You are the carbon they want to exterminate!
1. No one denies that man affects the climate, but scientists disagree on the amount and causes.
Prehistoric data from ice cores proves that temperature rise precedes carbon release in the atmosphere, not the other way around.
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/best-scientific-sources-to-debunk
2. There's proof of deliberate geoengineering to increase global temperatures and droughts, and decrease albedo by dissolving clouds with satellite and Weather Radars’ Electro-Magnetic Frequencies.
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/satattack
3. Life involves a carbon cycle. A war on carbon is a war on life, causing food scarcity, increase in food prices and famines. Decarbonization is part of the plan to exterminate 95% of us.
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/carbon-reparations
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/climate-deaths
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/killing-me-softly-with-green-songs
- Apart from sin-empowered demons, what is their main source of power? NOT a coincidence that the USA left dollar convertibility to gold in 1971, precisely triggering the exponential government deficit coupled with the trade deficit and inflation.
This is the Achilles’ heel of all nations: the SSS (Satanic Secret Societies such as masonry) counterfeit paper money and digital assets and launder trillions with which they buy Banks, seats in the Federal Reserve (the only private-run Central Bank in the world), political careers and parties, puppeticians, judges, listed corporations, media, healthcare corporations and organizations, universities, foundations, etc.
Taking down central banking doesn't solve the problem. Their source of money is counterfeiting, fractional reserve banking and financial instruments (e.g. derivatives, debt over debt, compound interest above real growth, etc.).
They can act as long as the majority keeps daydreaming. Their worst nightmare is that people wake up, find out all the crimes, and seek justice/revenge. They are only 8000: 1 against a million. They are scared and know they are walking a tight rope until CBDC full digi-tatorship.
We've got a very small window of opportunity to fight or ... die (they want to murder 95% of us).
Who are The Powers That SHOULDN'T Be ?
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/criminal-intent
https://www.coreysdigs.com/global/who-is-they/
Weaponization of Justice
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/weaponization-of-justice
Illuminati David Rockefeller, finest quotes:
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/david-rockefeller-illuminati
Confessions of ex illuminati Ronald Bernard:
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/confessions-of-illuminati-ronald
Ex mason Serge Abad-Gallardo:
https://www.ncregister.com/interview/confessions-of-a-former-freemason-officer-converted-to-catholicism
President John Quincy Adams: “Masonry ought forever to be abolished. It is wrong - essentially wrong - a seed of evil, which can never produce any good.”
The way out of this mess:
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/laws-to-exit-planet-prison
"Self-driving taxis have a big advantage over self-driving self-owned-cars: they can operate 24-7 and never have to park."
Never? Most are going to be parked for at least part of the night. Let's hope they aren't roaming all night. The advantage is it should take way less than half the cars for those who switch because far fewer will sit idle. They might also park at unused venues like a sports stadium or in the suburbs.
We have to also look at negative influences. If these self-driving vehicles are enough cheaper to attract drivers, they might also attract people currently riding buses and subways.
Not much progress from Progressives... They need a new name.
Call me a luddite if you will, but I think the problem of deepfakes crafted with AI is real, as is what you might call the Robert Reich problem (ie, social media gives a big platform to demagogues who play on the worst impulses of the Too Online set). I mean...not that I want to turn the tech industry's prospects over to Gavin Newsome and his pals, but at the same time, I think some of the shine has worn off of 90's era techno-optimism.
> ideas from the 1950s and 1960s
Oh! Can we go back to building lighter weight cars then?
When looking back at history and around in the current world, it seems to me that if progress and change can be stopped, they will be stopped.
While I appreciate McCormick's argument, I think he is somewhat ignoring the fact that petroleum got vastly more expensive in the 1970s, and not just because of regulation, which I would suspect wound up driving a lot of research and engineering work into finding substitutes for it rather than driving productivity related work.
"I predict that there will be a tipping point at which driving your own car will be considered a scary thing to do relative to riding in a driverless car."
I can imagine this. But not very soon.
I don't think that will honestly be the tipping point that drives this shift though sure it would naturally happen eventually. The tipping point is cost, i.e. what everyone likes to ignore, including economists, is taxis (or equiv like Uber or even hourly car rents) still cost more both in money and time than car ownership . Until cars are a luxury item (ignoring mass transit which they aren't competing against) in the transportation convenience market, like personal helicopters, people are going to continue to own them.
My brother lives in a rural area and risks a DUI daily because he has zero interest in $100 Uber roundtrip to the bar on top of a two hours of waiting each time. His twenty year old Honda Civic doesn't run him $500 a month, much less $3000. I live in a dense urban area and make three to four trips a day which would run me $190 a day minimum total, my annualized car TCO cost is $45 a day, tell me again why I would rent/taxi?
Europe's problem is that it is tougher to make sensible monetary policy for such desperate economies. The Euro was a big mistake
Robot taxis are a great choice in any large city, providing 1) they're safer than the average driver (which isn't hard, considering that the "average driver" seems to be well below average), 2) arrive in a timely fashion to pick you up, and 3) are overall fairly far below the costs of owning a car.
However, I usually had the devil's own tme convincing college students that roundabouts were better for traffic than 4-way intersections. Robot taxis seem to be one of those innivations that some people don't like for visceral, but unexplainable reasons.