Given that the only strategies I’ve seen on the right are a) wait until they come for us (and they will lose). b) Or wait until they come for us (and retreat to hidey holes). c) Or wait until they come for us, and win by guerilla tactics (and maybe win).
STRATEGY 1 – Take Responsibilityl. Choose Moral High Ground, Benefit Everyone. Negotiated Separation, Use the Opportunity Reform politics and economy. With no civil war. Let natural processes do the work of separating central whites from coastal non. (Keep trying to win)
STRATEGY 2 – Stay Neutral. Produce Content, Publish Negotiation Strategy, Publish war plan and let other’s step up ‘if they so choose’. Civil War if they choose. And hope they don’t screw it up too much. (Try to help others win)
STRATEGY 3 – Go WN. Revise Content, Revise Demands, Pure Ethnocentrism. Ethnocentric takeover of all organs of state, farming immigrants until they depart. Publish objectives. Publish war plan. And let others step up and do the now-necessary civil war – a lot of it. (Try to provide an answer for the aftermath if the right somehow miraculously wins)
STRATEGY 4 – Go Religious. Abandon Reform, Revolution, write law and religion of European people in the hope that someday there are some people somewhere to resurrect our civilization. Let whatever happens happen. Go back into biz and make wealth. Enjoy the collapse from afar. (Try to provide a solution for the distant future if there is one.)
If we are to grant one another the right to self-determination, the first right upon which all others depend, is the right to bear arms in defense of self-determination.
Episode Notes
This is the Choice. I’m Curt Doolittle – Episode 0009 – The Second Amendment in Strictly Constructed Law
I thought I’d take a moment to illustrate the clarity that Propertarian Strict Construction of Law with one of your favorite subjects – the second amendment.
We state openly that commons are formed by those willing to use violence to produce and defend them. That means those who are willing to fight to produce and defend commons share ownership of those commons. We build everything in our constitutions our laws and our civilization, brick by brick upon the law of self-determination, reciprocity, and sovereignty under the law to preserve it. That includes the reciprocal exchange of the right to self-determination in all of life. Self-determination requires sovereignty under the law. And limiting our display word and deed to reciprocity is the only means of surviving; and markets in all walks of life are the only means of limiting ourselves to reciprocity, sovereignty, and self-determination.
But self-determination isn’t possible without the organized use of violence to defend it from the endless river of usurpers seeking every possible means to impose their control upon others for some excuse they favor or another – and thereby ending our requirement that everything we do be limited to reciprocity and markets, and that all government is also limited to constructing exchanges in a market for commons. And if t cannot be done by exchange, then it cannot be done without treason against the constitution, the law it is built pon, and the people who defend them both.
So the first right upon which all rights depend is the right to bear arms in defense of private and common.
To hold the right to arms it must include a right that clearly expresses its terms; it must include an obligation to defend self, family, and commons with those arms, with that right, it must include the inalienability of that right AND obligation – meaning not only may others not take it without punishment – but you may not surrender it without punishment either, and we must state the punishment if anyone tries.
So let’s compare the existing second amendment – that only states a right, and unclearly its terms
“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Now let’s compare that to the Propertarian Constitution.
Defense of Interests, Rights, and Obligations
1 – The Right and Obligation to Keep, Bear, and Use Arms
i – The right and obligation of all citizens to keep, bear, and use, any and all arms individually preferred, functionally sufficient, or strategically necessary for personal, familial, common, commercial, civil, and military defense, at all times, without exception, shall not be infringed.
ii – The obligation of all able citizens between 16 and 65 to keep and bear necessary and sufficient arms and ammunition, and to remain disciplined in their use, and fit to use them in defense of the people and their interests, whether by personal initiative, civic request, militial or military service shall not be infringed.
iii. The inalienability of the citizen’s right and obligation to keep arms, bear arms, and use arms, and obligation to remain fit for, perform service in, the citizen’s militia shall not be infringed.
iiii. Any and all attempts by display word or deed to alienate a citizen or citizens, or attempt at alienation by a citizen or citizens from the right and obligation to keep and bear those arms, remain fit for and perform services in the citizen’s militia, shall constitute an act of treason punishable by death.
So you see – this is why we’re so fussy with language. We make armored laws. For armored men.
I hope that puts our work into perspective.
Everything we do is designed to defend the European way of life against the enemies who would deprive us of self-determination.
If we are to grant one another the right to self-determination, the first right upon which all others depend, is the right to bear arms in defense of self-determination.
Episode Notes
This is the Choice. I’m Curt Doolittle – Episode 0009 – The Second Amendment in Strictly Constructed Law
I thought I’d take a moment to illustrate the clarity that Propertarian Strict Construction of Law with one of your favorite subjects – the second amendment.
We state openly that commons are formed by those willing to use violence to produce and defend them. That means those who are willing to fight to produce and defend commons share ownership of those commons. We build everything in our constitutions our laws and our civilization, brick by brick upon the law of self-determination, reciprocity, and sovereignty under the law to preserve it. That includes the reciprocal exchange of the right to self-determination in all of life. Self-determination requires sovereignty under the law. And limiting our display word and deed to reciprocity is the only means of surviving; and markets in all walks of life are the only means of limiting ourselves to reciprocity, sovereignty, and self-determination.
But self-determination isn’t possible without the organized use of violence to defend it from the endless river of usurpers seeking every possible means to impose their control upon others for some excuse they favor or another – and thereby ending our requirement that everything we do be limited to reciprocity and markets, and that all government is also limited to constructing exchanges in a market for commons. And if t cannot be done by exchange, then it cannot be done without treason against the constitution, the law it is built pon, and the people who defend them both.
So the first right upon which all rights depend is the right to bear arms in defense of private and common.
To hold the right to arms it must include a right that clearly expresses its terms; it must include an obligation to defend self, family, and commons with those arms, with that right, it must include the inalienability of that right AND obligation – meaning not only may others not take it without punishment – but you may not surrender it without punishment either, and we must state the punishment if anyone tries.
So let’s compare the existing second amendment – that only states a right, and unclearly its terms
“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Now let’s compare that to the Propertarian Constitution.
Defense of Interests, Rights, and Obligations
1 – The Right and Obligation to Keep, Bear, and Use Arms
i – The right and obligation of all citizens to keep, bear, and use, any and all arms individually preferred, functionally sufficient, or strategically necessary for personal, familial, common, commercial, civil, and military defense, at all times, without exception, shall not be infringed.
ii – The obligation of all able citizens between 16 and 65 to keep and bear necessary and sufficient arms and ammunition, and to remain disciplined in their use, and fit to use them in defense of the people and their interests, whether by personal initiative, civic request, militial or military service shall not be infringed.
iii. The inalienability of the citizen’s right and obligation to keep arms, bear arms, and use arms, and obligation to remain fit for, perform service in, the citizen’s militia shall not be infringed.
iiii. Any and all attempts by display word or deed to alienate a citizen or citizens, or attempt at alienation by a citizen or citizens from the right and obligation to keep and bear those arms, remain fit for and perform services in the citizen’s militia, shall constitute an act of treason punishable by death.
So you see – this is why we’re so fussy with language. We make armored laws. For armored men.
I hope that puts our work into perspective.
Everything we do is designed to defend the European way of life against the enemies who would deprive us of self-determination.
MEN AND WOMEN – ATTRACTED TO WHAT THEY UNDERSTAND, NOT WHAT IS GOOD FOR THEM.
You know how women easily go for men they shouldn’t? Unless they have strong fathers and brothers? Women are attracted to the dominance expression that they understand. the problem is training them to be attracted to the dominance expression that isn’t bad for them.
The same applies to men, in relation to their domiance hierarchy: politics, ideology, philosophy, faith. Men are attracted to the dominance expression that they understand. The problem is training them to be attracted to the dominance expression that isn’t bad for them. in simple terms, that’s what the military tries to do.
The left excels at activism – rallying (emotion-social). But the right excels at education (reason-political).
So, without adversarial education, without military training, without men’s organizations, men are attracted to what they understand, not what is good for them.
This is our fundamental problem of ‘uniting the right’.
Education is costly and time-consuming.
Simply getting beaten in war will do some.
But victory in war would do more.
So we must ‘educate’ whether the men like it or not.
They must learn to be attracted to what is good for them.
EUGENICS SUCCEEDS – EVEN PLATO DISCUSSED IT
Eugenics (/juːˈdʒɛnɪks/; from Greek εὐ- “good” and γενής “come into being, growing”) is a set of beliefs and practices that aim to improve the genetic quality of a human population,[3][4] historically by excluding people and groups judged to be inferior and promoting those judged to be superior.[5]
HISTORY
The concept predates the term; Plato suggested applying the principles of selective breeding to humans around 400 BC. Early advocates of eugenics in the 19th century regarded it as a way of improving groups of people. In contemporary usage, the term eugenics is closely associated with scientific racism and white supremacism.[2] Modern bioethicists who advocate new eugenics characterise it as a way of enhancing individual traits, regardless of group membership.
PRE-WAR SUCCESSES
While eugenic principles have been practiced as early as ancient Greece, the contemporary history of eugenics began in the early 20th century, when a popular eugenics movement emerged in the United Kingdom,[6] and then spread to many countries, including the United States, Canada,[7] and most European countries. In this period, people from across the political spectrum espoused eugenic ideas. Consequently, many countries adopted eugenic policies, intended to improve the quality of their populations’ genetic stock. Such programs included both positive measures, such as encouraging individuals deemed particularly “fit” to reproduce, and negative measures, such as marriage prohibitions and forced sterilization of people deemed unfit for reproduction. Those deemed “unfit to reproduce” often included people with mental or physical disabilities, people who scored in the low ranges on different IQ tests, criminals and “deviants,” and members of disfavored minority groups.
DOWNFALL
The eugenics movement became associated with Nazi Germany and the Holocaust when the defense of many of the defendants at the Nuremberg trials of 1945 to 1946 attempted to justify their human-rights abuses by claiming there was little difference between the Nazi eugenics programs and the U.S. eugenics programs.[8] In the decades following World War II, with more emphasis on human rights, many countries began to abandon eugenics policies, although some Western countries (the United States, Canada, and Sweden among them) continued to carry out forced sterilizations.
REVIVAL
Since the 1980s and 1990s, with new assisted reproductive technology procedures available, such as gestational surrogacy (available since 1985), preimplantation genetic diagnosis (available since 1989), and cytoplasmic transfer (first performed in 1996), concern has grown about the possible revival of a more potent form of eugenics after decades of promoting human rights.
CRITICISM
A criticism of eugenics policies is that, regardless of whether negative or positive policies are used, they are susceptible to abuse because the genetic selection criteria are determined by whichever group has political power at the time.[9] Furthermore, many criticize negative eugenics in particular as a violation of basic human rights, seen since 1968’s Proclamation of Tehran[10] as including the right to reproduce. Another criticism is that eugenics policies eventually lead to a loss of genetic diversity, thereby resulting in inbreeding depression due to a loss of genetic variation.[11] Yet another criticism of contemporary eugenics policies is that they propose to permanently and artificially disrupt millions of years of evolution, and that attempting to create genetic lines “clean” of “disorders” can have far-reaching ancillary downstream effects in the genetic ecology, including negative effects on immunity and on species resilience.[12]
(via wikipedia)
EUGENICS
The science is rather obvious. But…
—“The only necessary policy: Forced sterilization of the dependent sub-90’s would be the only policy necessary. Since 90 floats on the average, this policy would never have to change.”—
That’s called ‘positive’ (or hard) eugenics’.
Well, we did it successfully prewar. But the postwar (a)propaganda (b) prohibition on research (c) pseudointellectual movements of Marxism, postmodernism, feminism, and HBD-Denialism are all predicated on suppressing this one continuation of natural selection. The industrial revolution ended it. And that means eugenics is a great filter, and that the end result is extinction.
—“Not only will no one agree to this, but it has to be one of the darkest and most horrific approaches to dealing with ‘double-digiters’. A better way imo would be a 1 or no child policy for welfare.”—
That’s called ‘negative’ (or soft) eugenics.
If you need subsidy, you can’t demonstrate fitness. 1-child.
Of course – that’s the right policy. 😉
And it’s what’s in our Constitutional recommendations.
EUGENICS SUCCEEDS – EVEN PLATO DISCUSSED IT
Eugenics (/juːˈdʒɛnɪks/; from Greek εὐ- “good” and γενής “come into being, growing”) is a set of beliefs and practices that aim to improve the genetic quality of a human population,[3][4] historically by excluding people and groups judged to be inferior and promoting those judged to be superior.[5]
HISTORY
The concept predates the term; Plato suggested applying the principles of selective breeding to humans around 400 BC. Early advocates of eugenics in the 19th century regarded it as a way of improving groups of people. In contemporary usage, the term eugenics is closely associated with scientific racism and white supremacism.[2] Modern bioethicists who advocate new eugenics characterise it as a way of enhancing individual traits, regardless of group membership.
PRE-WAR SUCCESSES
While eugenic principles have been practiced as early as ancient Greece, the contemporary history of eugenics began in the early 20th century, when a popular eugenics movement emerged in the United Kingdom,[6] and then spread to many countries, including the United States, Canada,[7] and most European countries. In this period, people from across the political spectrum espoused eugenic ideas. Consequently, many countries adopted eugenic policies, intended to improve the quality of their populations’ genetic stock. Such programs included both positive measures, such as encouraging individuals deemed particularly “fit” to reproduce, and negative measures, such as marriage prohibitions and forced sterilization of people deemed unfit for reproduction. Those deemed “unfit to reproduce” often included people with mental or physical disabilities, people who scored in the low ranges on different IQ tests, criminals and “deviants,” and members of disfavored minority groups.
DOWNFALL
The eugenics movement became associated with Nazi Germany and the Holocaust when the defense of many of the defendants at the Nuremberg trials of 1945 to 1946 attempted to justify their human-rights abuses by claiming there was little difference between the Nazi eugenics programs and the U.S. eugenics programs.[8] In the decades following World War II, with more emphasis on human rights, many countries began to abandon eugenics policies, although some Western countries (the United States, Canada, and Sweden among them) continued to carry out forced sterilizations.
REVIVAL
Since the 1980s and 1990s, with new assisted reproductive technology procedures available, such as gestational surrogacy (available since 1985), preimplantation genetic diagnosis (available since 1989), and cytoplasmic transfer (first performed in 1996), concern has grown about the possible revival of a more potent form of eugenics after decades of promoting human rights.
CRITICISM
A criticism of eugenics policies is that, regardless of whether negative or positive policies are used, they are susceptible to abuse because the genetic selection criteria are determined by whichever group has political power at the time.[9] Furthermore, many criticize negative eugenics in particular as a violation of basic human rights, seen since 1968’s Proclamation of Tehran[10] as including the right to reproduce. Another criticism is that eugenics policies eventually lead to a loss of genetic diversity, thereby resulting in inbreeding depression due to a loss of genetic variation.[11] Yet another criticism of contemporary eugenics policies is that they propose to permanently and artificially disrupt millions of years of evolution, and that attempting to create genetic lines “clean” of “disorders” can have far-reaching ancillary downstream effects in the genetic ecology, including negative effects on immunity and on species resilience.[12]
(via wikipedia)
EUGENICS
The science is rather obvious. But…
—“The only necessary policy: Forced sterilization of the dependent sub-90’s would be the only policy necessary. Since 90 floats on the average, this policy would never have to change.”—
That’s called ‘positive’ (or hard) eugenics’.
Well, we did it successfully prewar. But the postwar (a)propaganda (b) prohibition on research (c) pseudointellectual movements of Marxism, postmodernism, feminism, and HBD-Denialism are all predicated on suppressing this one continuation of natural selection. The industrial revolution ended it. And that means eugenics is a great filter, and that the end result is extinction.
—“Not only will no one agree to this, but it has to be one of the darkest and most horrific approaches to dealing with ‘double-digiters’. A better way imo would be a 1 or no child policy for welfare.”—
That’s called ‘negative’ (or soft) eugenics.
If you need subsidy, you can’t demonstrate fitness. 1-child.
Of course – that’s the right policy. 😉
And it’s what’s in our Constitutional recommendations.
GERMANIZATION OF EARLY MEDIEVAL CHRISTIANITY: 12 POINT SUMMARY
James C Russell’s ‘Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity: A Sociohistorical Approach to Religious Transformation’ (GOEMC) is an excellent study on the evolution of Christianity from a predominantly Mediterranean religion to a northern European one. [1] The book has recently gained popularity on the internet right, and it’s now regarded as a “must read” in some circles.
Russell is a conservative historian and theologian who authored another book condemning the role of organized Christianity in the facilitation of mass immigration into the United States and other Western countries. [2] Russell published GOEMC through the Oxford University Press in 1994.
SUMMARY
In GOEMC’s concluding chapter, Russell summarized his work’s twelve main points. [3]
(1) Early Christianity emerged from an urban, heterogeneous, and low social capital society. German society at the time of first contact with Christianity was rural, homogeneous, and high social capital.
(2) Early Christianity was “world rejecting” and “salvation” focused. In contrast, the pre-Christian German worldview was world accepting and socio-biological (ethnic and immediate).
(3) The first Christian missionaries to Germany accommodated Christianity to the religopolitical and magicoreligous elements of the German worldview. [4]
(4) Early efforts to convert Germans to Christ resulted in the reinterpretation of Christianity through the Germanic worldview.
(5) Catholic Christianity’s political reliance on Germanic nations, like the Franks, led to the increased influence of their interpretation of Christianity over the Western Church.
(6) Some Germanic nations attempted to preserve their unique ethnic identity and independence by adhering to Arianism rather than subjecting themselves to the outside power of Church hierarchy.
(7) The “Christianization” of the Germans was very shallow until at least the reign of Charlemagne (768 – 814) because there was no catechumanate system or qualified teachers to finish instruction. The Church prioritized baptism over teaching because they thought the apocalypse was near. The German worldview was too strong to allow full Christianization.
(8) Early missionaries to the Germans were as successful as they could have been. If they had not accommodated Christianity to the German worldview they probably would not have found any success.
(9) The initial accommodation of Christianity to the German worldview laid the foundation for later indoctrination of Christian worldview and ethics.
(10) Christian missionaries misrepresented the extent of disparity between the Germanic and Christian worldview when initially accommodating Christianity to a fresh German audience.
(11) Early Christian accommodation left Germans with the impression that Jesus was one among many magicoreligous gods to include in their pantheon. New German converts did not possess doctrinal or ethical concerns.
(12) Contributing factors to Christianity’s German spread included: the association of Christianity with Frankish political aims, an imagined causal association of Christianity with Roman grandeur, and a coincidental similarity between German myths and Christian beliefs, rituals, and symbols.
This book is in the P reading list.
Source: https://cocmillennial.blogspot.com/…/germanization-of-early…
(Apologies. I don’t know who sent me this link to me)
GERMANIZATION OF EARLY MEDIEVAL CHRISTIANITY: 12 POINT SUMMARY
James C Russell’s ‘Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity: A Sociohistorical Approach to Religious Transformation’ (GOEMC) is an excellent study on the evolution of Christianity from a predominantly Mediterranean religion to a northern European one. [1] The book has recently gained popularity on the internet right, and it’s now regarded as a “must read” in some circles.
Russell is a conservative historian and theologian who authored another book condemning the role of organized Christianity in the facilitation of mass immigration into the United States and other Western countries. [2] Russell published GOEMC through the Oxford University Press in 1994.
SUMMARY
In GOEMC’s concluding chapter, Russell summarized his work’s twelve main points. [3]
(1) Early Christianity emerged from an urban, heterogeneous, and low social capital society. German society at the time of first contact with Christianity was rural, homogeneous, and high social capital.
(2) Early Christianity was “world rejecting” and “salvation” focused. In contrast, the pre-Christian German worldview was world accepting and socio-biological (ethnic and immediate).
(3) The first Christian missionaries to Germany accommodated Christianity to the religopolitical and magicoreligous elements of the German worldview. [4]
(4) Early efforts to convert Germans to Christ resulted in the reinterpretation of Christianity through the Germanic worldview.
(5) Catholic Christianity’s political reliance on Germanic nations, like the Franks, led to the increased influence of their interpretation of Christianity over the Western Church.
(6) Some Germanic nations attempted to preserve their unique ethnic identity and independence by adhering to Arianism rather than subjecting themselves to the outside power of Church hierarchy.
(7) The “Christianization” of the Germans was very shallow until at least the reign of Charlemagne (768 – 814) because there was no catechumanate system or qualified teachers to finish instruction. The Church prioritized baptism over teaching because they thought the apocalypse was near. The German worldview was too strong to allow full Christianization.
(8) Early missionaries to the Germans were as successful as they could have been. If they had not accommodated Christianity to the German worldview they probably would not have found any success.
(9) The initial accommodation of Christianity to the German worldview laid the foundation for later indoctrination of Christian worldview and ethics.
(10) Christian missionaries misrepresented the extent of disparity between the Germanic and Christian worldview when initially accommodating Christianity to a fresh German audience.
(11) Early Christian accommodation left Germans with the impression that Jesus was one among many magicoreligous gods to include in their pantheon. New German converts did not possess doctrinal or ethical concerns.
(12) Contributing factors to Christianity’s German spread included: the association of Christianity with Frankish political aims, an imagined causal association of Christianity with Roman grandeur, and a coincidental similarity between German myths and Christian beliefs, rituals, and symbols.
This book is in the P reading list.
Source: https://cocmillennial.blogspot.com/…/germanization-of-early…
(Apologies. I don’t know who sent me this link to me)
—“Which is something you have to do when you’re managing with “the population you have, not the one you want””—Moritz Bierling
Its a fight between forces of hierarchy and kinship in correspondence with reality versus a fight for equality and
—“So it really is a fight between civicism and religion for supremacy”—Moritz Bierling
I didn’t make the connection clear, sorry.
1) BIOLOGICAL VS INFORMATIONAL
The people you have (biological, behavioral) and the people you have (knowledge, understanding, values) are not the same criteria. Governing with the people you have (incentives, constant) is a question of possibility, and governing with the people you have (education) is merely a question of costs and externalities. we can continue to kick the can down the road and NOT produce a ‘bible’ of western civilization, that would solve the problem or we can solve the problem despite its cost, in a period where there is high demand for the solution to the problem.
2) THE UNDERLYING PROBLEM IS THE SAME
Civicism, localism, nationalism, evolution, competition vs religion, universalism, globalism, devolution, corruption.
Al these problems are the same source: easy female dysgenic and boil the frog vs hard male eugenic and transcend. Our intuitions are to not pay the cost of adaptation. We have to pay that cost and train people to pay that cost without stress. Only Europeans did it. How can we evolve our concepts, norms, traditions, institutions, so that we continue to evolve man rather than regress? We know now. The problem is solvable. but it is only solvable if we win the war against the female dysgenic intuition by either conquest or separation and competitive evolution. Of those two separation is the most beneficial and the fastest since we get rid of our own.
3) THE ILLUSION WE HAVE TIME
It’s not like we have an infinite amount of time. The frequency of geological events capable of wiping out humans is higher than the frequency of climate variations. The frequency of astronomic events is lower, but it’s still continuous.
The future of mankind is decided right now. this year, next year.
A few more years and its over. there are no ‘undiscovered countries’ with reserves of ability remaining. We have exploited the pool of humans as thoroughly as exploiting the world’s resources.
—“Which is something you have to do when you’re managing with “the population you have, not the one you want””—Moritz Bierling
Its a fight between forces of hierarchy and kinship in correspondence with reality versus a fight for equality and
—“So it really is a fight between civicism and religion for supremacy”—Moritz Bierling
I didn’t make the connection clear, sorry.
1) BIOLOGICAL VS INFORMATIONAL
The people you have (biological, behavioral) and the people you have (knowledge, understanding, values) are not the same criteria. Governing with the people you have (incentives, constant) is a question of possibility, and governing with the people you have (education) is merely a question of costs and externalities. we can continue to kick the can down the road and NOT produce a ‘bible’ of western civilization, that would solve the problem or we can solve the problem despite its cost, in a period where there is high demand for the solution to the problem.
2) THE UNDERLYING PROBLEM IS THE SAME
Civicism, localism, nationalism, evolution, competition vs religion, universalism, globalism, devolution, corruption.
Al these problems are the same source: easy female dysgenic and boil the frog vs hard male eugenic and transcend. Our intuitions are to not pay the cost of adaptation. We have to pay that cost and train people to pay that cost without stress. Only Europeans did it. How can we evolve our concepts, norms, traditions, institutions, so that we continue to evolve man rather than regress? We know now. The problem is solvable. but it is only solvable if we win the war against the female dysgenic intuition by either conquest or separation and competitive evolution. Of those two separation is the most beneficial and the fastest since we get rid of our own.
3) THE ILLUSION WE HAVE TIME
It’s not like we have an infinite amount of time. The frequency of geological events capable of wiping out humans is higher than the frequency of climate variations. The frequency of astronomic events is lower, but it’s still continuous.
The future of mankind is decided right now. this year, next year.
A few more years and its over. there are no ‘undiscovered countries’ with reserves of ability remaining. We have exploited the pool of humans as thoroughly as exploiting the world’s resources.