Earth: Planet in Denial

This is the captain's log, planetary date April 18th, Earth year 2011.

I am currently stuck in a planet with limited resources trying to convince two inhabitants their ancient technology is ruining the planet.  Although not all people in the planet think like they do.  Many of the scientists in the planet started sounding the alarm not too long ago but the reaction of these two locals as well as many more like them was to believe these scientists were lying to them without even knowing why.  Here is a summary of my exchange with the two inhabitants:

April 11:

I try convincing them by suggesting the two get into a room where the air will be slowly but surely consumed by their ancient technology until they are no longer able to survive.

One reacts by asking why am I talking about the ancient technology instead of just referring to one of the pollutants produced by it, a gas called CO2.  He also complains why I have to use death as an example.  The other reacts by saying the planet doesn't work that way and worries about money being taxed out of him to fix this issue.

April 12-14:

I try to explain my position better after proposing my simple experiment.  They continue to argue without offering any countering experiment or scientific data.  One of them seems hurt I accused him of supporting indiscriminate bombing of civilians in another conversation.  It is the only conclusion I could arrive to since the military alliance he supports is unable to tell who exactly they are bombing in a certain part of the planet.

April 14, late night:

I try providing them with more easily understood scientific facts about the heat-trapping effects of CO2.  I present them with the video recording of an experiment done in a lab by one of their scientists. I also point out the high-temperature of the CO2-rich atmosphere of the planet Venus, also recorded by their scientists.  Then I give them photographic evidence of the pollution their ancient technology produces above their major cities.

April 15:

They continue to disagree with what I told them. Still they provide no scientific experiment or scientific basis for their disagreement.  I try mocking them out of their emotionally-driven responses.  That only makes matters worse but at least one produces a scientific article of Venus, not realizing the article agrees with my previous statements about CO2.  He pretends this did not happen and continues to argue.  The other one sends me a bunch of links to the website YouTube.com without offering a summary of his understanding in any of each.  He assumes I have to watch them all without him doing the work of putting sentences together in a coherent summary of his views. They both continue to stall the debate by saying they are working or socializing.  I point out if they had thought about this in depth already their answers should be fast and precise.  They refuse to admit to this and continue to argue and stall.

April 18:

One of them tries producing a well-thought-out statement of why Venus conditions could never happen on Earth.  He states there is not enough oxygen to produce an atmosphere made up of 95% CO2 as in Venus.  He proudly says we would run out of oxygen before we achieve a Venus-like atmosphere. He then proceeds to pat himself in the back and calls me "intellectually lazy".  I point out we would all be dead if it gets to the point of no oxygen.  I also point out we would not need to get as hot as Venus to suffer, only just above 40°C (104°F) to die from hyperthermia.  I repeated once more that polluted air, even without CO2, will slowly kill us all.   I really had to mock him about this.  I grow weary of their adamant position and realize they are emotionally driven so I have no way of changing their minds, no matter how many facts I give them.  They will have to suffer the consequences of their ancient technology in person only that will change their minds.  The only problem is I will have to suffer with them :-(

Broken Democracy: US Government Continues 3 Wars While 16 Million Kids Are Homeless

     There are now 16 million children trying to live as best as they can in homelessness and poverty in the United States of America.  CBS 60 minutes reports on this unfortunate trend:



Why are these kids not the top priority of the US government? It is said children are the future of a nation so why is the government not in line with this important human belief?

We find the US government will spend "$671.5 billion in base and overseas contingency operation funding for fiscal year 2011. The base budget is $513.6 billion, which represents a $2.13 billion reduction to H.R. 1. The defense bill also contains $157.8 billion for overseas contingency operations (OCO), the same amount as the House passed bill and as requested by the President." Those amounts are directly quoted from the Department of Defense Appropriations Act. This act is currently financing three wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Libya.  Besides those war expenses, this act provides billions of dollars for foreign allies around the world while nothing is spent on helping these US children improve their condition.

Why is this happening?  According to this presentation from , the irrational priorities of the US government come from the way the US democracy has been modified to serve special interests:



Storyofstuff.org explains the US democracy has been hijacked by corporations who do not care about the welfare of citizens but instead favor profit above all else.  This is sadly illustrated by the report on "60 Minutes" showing one of the main things neglected by this new setup: The welfare of children.

How to convince the US population to invade a country

     By now many in the US have realized the enormous influence the industrial-military complex has in government.  This was made clear when massive amounts of money were spent on US companies working in Iraq.  President Dwight Eisenhower once warned Americans about this in his farewell address:





Currently they seem to have many tactics to push their agenda into the mind of the average American.  Why do they need consent from the US population?  It is the taxpayers who will take the hit physically, by sending young people to war, and economically, by financing the war.  Here is part of the list which has become very obvious since they already used it to justify the invasion of Iraq:

1)  Appeal to the US population's conscience for help with the objective

The first time the appeal was directed at stopping a dictator in Iraq from killing a group:


http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,391985,00.html


Now we have the same appeal directed at stopping a dictator in Libya from killing another group:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110307/ap_on_re_af/af_libya

Yet there was no fast, hard talk of intervention for other humanitarian crises. For example an African humanitarian crisis:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20765-2004Jul1.html

Is this a coincidence?

2) Bombard the US population with broadcasts about the objective

News are filled with repeating images from Libya, while other similar situations like large protests and people getting killed in Iraq during the protests by their own government are totally ignored on TV:

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/05/world/la-fg-iraq-protests-20110305

Is this a coincidence?

3) Remind the US population of 911 and associate it with the objective

911 was used has an excuse to invade Iraq even though later it was proven there were no links between Iraq and 911:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

Now the public can see on TV a strangely timed release of "new footage" from 911 just as talk of military intervention is being passed around in the news:

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/national_world&id=8001106

Along with official statements linking this other dictator to another terrorist attack:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/03/06/barack-obama-orders-lockerbie-bomber-al-megrahi-be-seized-115875-22969487/


Is this a coincidence?

4) Affect the US population economically to increase their resentment towards the objective

News broadcasts repeat over and over again the alleged relationship between the rise in gas prices and the objective.  Yet quoting the US Energy Information Administration the major sources of oil for the US are:


Total Imports of Petroleum (Top 15 Countries)
(Thousand Barrels per Day)
Country Dec-10 Nov-10 YTD 2010 Dec-09 YTD 2009

CANADA
MEXICO
SAUDI ARABIA
NIGERIA
VENEZUELA
RUSSIA
ALGERIA
IRAQ
ANGOLA
BRAZIL
UNITED KINGDOM
COLOMBIA
ECUADOR
VIRGIN ISLANDS
KUWAIT

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html

The objective is not even mentioned in this list, thus quantity wise it should not be significant.  So why have gas prices risen so sharply?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/08/AR2011030805121.html

Is this a coincidence?

5) Cumulative use of propaganda techniques on the US population

The previous four items buy consent from the average American by combining well-known propaganda techniques:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_techniques

Ad nauseam (An idea that is repeated enough times may begin to be taken as the truth) on TV.

Appeal to authority (Appeals to authority cite prominent figures to support a position, idea, argument, or course of action).

Appeal to fear (Appeals to fear seek to build support by instilling anxieties and panic in the general population).
   
Appeal to prejudice (Using loaded or emotive terms to attach value or moral goodness to believing the proposition).

Demonizing the enemy (Making individuals from the opposing nation appear to be subhuman through accusations).