Stories
Will Mankind Survive in the Next 12 Years? PART 2
Next Post

Press {{ keys }} + D to make this page bookmarked.

Close
Photo: akamaized.net/PrtSc

Will Mankind Survive in the Next 12 Years? PART 2

593

AUSTIN, TEXAS – January 22, 2019

“We need a new climate agreement - a much more brutal one, as well as an international police force that will monitor its implementation.”

In the last article, we had the courage to suggest that the human-inhabited world would shrink. This will certainly lead not only to migration, but also to a significant reduction in the population, which now stands at a little over 7 billion people. And the reason for this will be global climate processes. Moreover, these fatal changes could begin as a warning to higher powers already this year. 

Another powerful tsunami is expected in countries like Indonesia. This could result in thousands and tens of thousands of victims. This is a different discussion because there are a lot of threats from natural disasters that are only intensifying and increasing and which science is not yet able to calculate. When will the Yellowstone Caldera erupt: in 5 years or 200? Or maybe in a week? In principle, here, as in politics, we must proceed from the fact that it could happen tomorrow. If it happens tomorrow, it will be a threat to all mankind. Not only for the US, but also - we emphasize - for all of civilization. 

The science is in fact deeply irresponsible: it does not know either the day or the hour. The truth is, it cannot know. The existing political system refuses to finance necessary studies, but it easily finances obvious and expensive nonsense such as gender problems, stem cells and other fashionable but useless research. But we have already written about that and do not want to repeat ourselves. Those interested can learn more about this topic here and in our other materials.

In this context, Donald Trump’s break with the Paris Climate Agreement (from June 1, 2017) is generally understandable: It was important for the American president to emphasize that he was fulfilling his commitments made during the election campaign, and the easiest way was to get out of the agreement and declare it an invention of democrats, liberals and other "bad" people who are not worth a penny. But in a sense, Trump is right. Do you know why? Because the Paris Convention is too limited and insufficient to take the emergency measures that are actually required. We need some kind of new agreement - much tougher than the previous one, and we need, let's say, international police who will monitor its implementation, because climate change is not fictional, but real and is much more dangerous than many other acute international problems (according to scientific data, the population of the Earth has a "quota" for the total amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere; if it is exceeded, the temperature on the planet will change by more than two degrees Celsius; the "quota" is 1.2 trillion tons).

Fifteen years ago, when the Paris Agreement on Climate was only being prepared, there was still some consensus among world leaders who really saw the threat to all of humanity. But this consensus was not enough to go for really tough measures. The countries that signed the Paris Convention were forced to take into account the interests of the oil industry and metallurgy of the United States, China and other major players in the global market; now there are problems with China and the United States, which together are responsible for 40% of global CO2 emissions. And Washington is unlikely to reconsider its position on the climate agreement, even if Trump is suddenly removed from the White House, because American nationalism, it seems, is developing at a more powerful pace than, for instance, European nationalism, the nationalism of the same Hungarian Viktor Orban or even Chinese nationalism. Even if someone develops an excellent model and presents convincing calculations, there is hardly any chance of concluding a new agreement. 

"The American economist hesitated a bit and answered, ‘There is only one way - war. It'll write it all off.‘”

Let us clarify the epochal economic crisis, the terrible features of which we outlined in the first part. Is this the last and final crisis that Karl Marx once wrote about? If there are no prospects behind it, but only a “path in the darkness,” does this mean that we will soon be destined to attend the funeral of capitalism?

Indeed, as we have said more than once, the old economic model based on the expansion of the dollar has come to an end and is collapsing. We have repeatedly written about the causes and mechanisms of these processes. Let's not repeat ourselves. What matters is that everything collapses, including usual business model, marketing, sales, etc. Most of the existing business models were focused on the middle class, on people with typical consumer behavior. Roughly, this behavior can be described as buying just what you want at the same time on credit. 

And everything was fine and wonderful, while cheap resources were available, but resources began to rise in price, the situation began to worsen, and we came to the global GDP being about $70-80 trillion, while debts are about $250-300 trillion. Derivatives, or what is called fictitious capital, amount to several hundred trillion dollars. The current crisis is unable to solve this key problem of modern capitalism.

And what can help? And what will happen next? It is not known, since one of the key problems of modern suicidal civilization is precisely the fact that there are no fundamentally new breakthrough social and political theories. Roughly speaking, there is no second Karl Marx. Not even the second Emil Durkheim.

Until now, all such problems have been solved by mankind through war. Imagine, if you now declare bankruptcy--suppose the US, whose debt is almost equal to its national GDP, or Japan, whose debt amounts to 250% of its GDP, this will mean the collapse of the entire world economy. And it will inevitably lead to wars all over the world. After all, what preceded the Second World War? Remember the beginning of the 1930s: local wars were fought all over the world, in Asia and Europe. And here the same thing will happen.

When asked if the upcoming economic crisis could solve the debt problem, the American economist and Nobel Prize winner Schmidt replied: "No." And being asked the question: “How can it be solved?” He hesitated and answered: “There is only one way: war. It’ll write it all off. ” That's so cynical and simple, in a scientific way.

In this case, local wars are already underway, and actively so. Take Africa: Most of the continent is covered by a chain of very strange local military conflicts between tribes, nations, or certain regions. At the same time, all these tribal and other conflicts are actually beginning to take on a global character, because the war there is for resources, the deficit of which in the world markets is growing. In the Central African Republic (CAR) there is a deposit of some minerals that have no analogues all over the world--rare metals, without which radio electronics will not be able to work. You cannot even imagine how bitter the struggle is for the deposits.

Author: USA Really