I hope, that all the colorful ponies and w.g. III fans from all around this wonderful world lit their colorful candles last night and through this act they helped with some serious Earth's resources savings 😁

Yeah, we all know, that the ones, who don't share the liberal views have absolutely no right to speak out their minds. This is how the things are settled in the current global so called "liberal democracy" - the only view is "the right" (leftist) view. This is even better than the totalitarian regime in the USSR and its Eastern Block 🤣

640K!enough wrote on Yesterday, 06:01:

That's something that has been happening too often lately.

Agreed, Vogons has started to feel like watching Fox news.

aVd wrote on Yesterday, 07:11:

I hope, that all the colorful ponies and w.g. III fans from all around this wonderful world lit their colorful candles last night and through this act they helped with some serious Earth's resources savings 😁

Yeah, we all know, that the ones, who don't share the liberal views have absolutely no right to speak out their minds. This is how the things are settled in the current global so called "liberal democracy" - the only view is "the right" (leftist) view. This is even better than the totalitarian regime in the USSR and its Eastern Block 🤣

...

I believe that events such as the Earth Day and Earth Overshoot Day are there to raise people's awareness.
To make them think, silently, on their own, without forcing something onto them.

Speaking of awareness, during cold war, there were two systems competing with each other,
each of them trying to convince citizens around the globe to be the better one.

That way, citizens in east and west had something to compare.
Especially over here in the two Germanies, with both systems side on side.
Which as such was positive, because it made people think.

However, after UdSSR had folded, there nolonger was such a comparison.
One system had simply won, because the other one had died.
That's as if an athlete at Olympia had gotten the gold medal, because the rival had a heart attack.

And so, citizens less and less thought about alternatives, how to make things different, how to improve.
This is perhaps the saddest part, being left with the status quo.

Thinking about this, I'm glad that we have a social market economy where I live, rather than the "full version" .

It's far from perfect, but at least it's the smaller devil. IMHO.

I just hope that humanity will eventually leave behind money, mass production and consumption and focus on more meaningful things.

Unfortunatelly, that might be in the distant future.

Or as someone wrote on the web, "we longed for the future of Star Trek, but for now, it's time for Planet of the Apes for us".

PS: Something interesting related to ozone hole/climate change/USSR/earth:
There was an little East German polar station that was popular in scientific world for a given time.
It was unique because it did record valuable atmospheric data gained through custom balloon probes.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg-Forster-Station, English Translation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziYT3TLaPtM

Our current civilization is going to end at some point, may as well go out with the AC on max and the RAM 2500 in the driveway before the next Chicxulub

Except Switzerland, it will be fine. 😉

Switzerland may be protected forum unnatural disasters until the "godchoosen" banks and some of the world's leading puppets accounts are in there. Then again may be not.

Now back to the main topic.

"For half a year we spent more resources, than Earth produces for year"... Could someone big-minded person here explain for non-liberal "narrow-minded idiots" how this idea works in practice? "For every half of the year "we spent resources for another half of the year in advance", so for one year of resource spending "Earth needs two years for regeneration", two years = four years spent, three years = six years spent and so on, and this only increases in time, but we still have enough resources to "overshoot"... WTF?!! Most of the natural resources like oil, gas and other "fossil based" fuels we're using are not self-renewable, so how the Earth regenerates them? In the other hand, the life based resources (like plants, cattle and their sub-products) are totally recoverable. And I know one very humane person - the "planetary virologist" w.g. III, which claims, that trees are harmful to the climate. Also, this very same stealer of other's works claims that cows fart too much methane and this is very harmful to the climate, so they must be eradicated (for real).. So, this liberal agenda for "spending more..." is total nonsense, just like all the rest of the liberal agendas.

Human stupidity knows no limits.

aVd wrote on Today, 05:45:

"For half a year we spent more resources, than Earth produces for year"... Could someone big-minded person here explain for non-liberal "narrow-minded idiots" how this idea works in practice?

I am not a liberal, but the concept is not invalid, it is rather a truism, as in it must work that way in reality. The planet has a stockpile of resources that is added to at a certain rate (like water entering a lake), and the resources are used at a certain rate (like municipal water supply for a town). If the usage (output) is greater than the replenishment rate (input) the resource is finite and will deplete in finite time. It's a bit more complicated in that the depletion rate is non-linear, it will follow an exponential supply/demand curve and become unavaiable for certain uses at different times based on economics.

The overshoot point marks when the annual usage exceeds annual replinishment.

I explained about the resources. The "dead" ones are limited and we can not spent more, than we have, because they are limited, but still exist. The living ones are renewable and we also can not spent all of than, just because they will suddenly became non-existing.

All the other bullshit concepts are just mass-media propaganda for additional brain washing or mind polishing. And if someone wants to help with the renewable resources for real, he or she better off start planting trees, growing vegetables or take care of livestock... But is this allowed now without the government regulations? No, because the governors "are taking care of us" 😁

aVd wrote on Today, 06:18:

I explained about the resources. The "dead" ones are limited and we can not spent more, than we have, because they are limited, but still exist. The living ones are renewable and we also can not spent more than we have, just because they will suddenly became non-existing.

All the other bullshit concepts are just mass-media propaganda for additional brain washing or mind polishing.

Functionally, being economically unavailable is the same as not existing for most people, you are arguing semantics just for the sake of it. It will never truly not exist because someone will supply 3 molecules of something for an exhorbitant sum.

I also struggle to understand what exactly they mean, as certain resources are very much a location dependent thing. Nobody is shipping significant amounts of fresh water en masse halfway around the world, for instance. Furthermore, most things we understand as resources are of the mineral variety, which are mostly non-renewable anyway. Renewable resources, on the other hand, are economically renewable and actively being renewed in a supply and demand fashion.

So, when we can't use the objective natural laws to argue, we switch for pseudoscience called "Economics" (nothing more than a handbook for greedy speculators).

As I already mentioned a couple of times, all the natural resources (no matter, if they are renewable or non-renewable) are limited and we can't spent more than we have, even with the stockpiled ones. This fundamental concept is recreated even in useless things like video/computer games (RTS ones) - you just can't spent resources in advance. Also, the natural resources can not be compared to nowadays fake money (a product of the global bank fraud), since they can to be printed (in advance) from the thin air just like that.

Of course, we now have things like synthetic oil made from crops and this way it is renewable, and also it is some kind of natural oil, but the synthetic one is different from the fossil oil, which is "dead" and limited (bus still not depleted). And even if we now can produce some quantity of synthetic oil and stockpile it, we can not spent more than we've produced and stockpiled for years and years on.

I think those globalist NGOs and think-tanks, which promoting such "brilliant ideas" are just wasting too much resources and money with very low efficiency. If I was their global sponsor, I'd shut them down for non-efficiency, all of them 😀

EDIT: Typos + last paragraph

[..] are limited and we can't spent more than we have [..]

The way I understand, we're currently living off the future resources of our children and grand children.
These are reserve resources not meant to be used up by us (now), but required by earth itself to heal and recover.
To speak in pictures, we're using up the reserve petrol of our car that's supposed to get us to the next petrol station.
Currently, we consume the resources of 1,7 earths according to the webpage.

Jo22 wrote on 2026-08-05, 10:20:

I thought that the ozone hole was real and that the ozone layer started to slowly recover in the years after when FCKWs had been banned.

It is and will be mostly healed in about 20 years.
If in doubt there is plenty of scientific evidence and quite frankly if they didn't ban the problem life would be extinguished by now.
But its recovery is hindered by super continents industrial pollution I believe China is the worst.
Also active volcanoes contribute.

Jo22 wrote on Today, 07:50:

The way I understand, we're currently living off the future resources of our children and grand children...

Yeah, I could imagine I'm living now on Mars in the first human colony there, which will be just my personal dream or hallucination, but this does not change the crude reality, that I'm still dwelling in the €u-shithole ruled by totally corrupted neoliberal sycopats and sоmеhow still coexist in peace with their paid and free fanatic followers 😀

Just remember and repeat: "The Grean Green Deal saves the Earth, and mutti ursi takes care of us!" 🤣

P.S. The human imagination also knows no limits, just like the human stupidity.

zapbuzz wrote on Today, 07:57:

Jo22 wrote on 2026-08-05, 10:20:

I thought that the ozone hole was real and that the ozone layer started to slowly recover in the years after when FCKWs had been banned.

It is and will be mostly healed in about 20 years.
If in doubt there is plenty of scientific evidence and quite frankly if they didn't ban the problem life would be extinguished by now.

It's a very good case of something demonstrable in the lab, observable in data over decades and proven by data since (i.e. more cfc lead to more ozone depletion, less cfc lead to ozone recovery.

I'm not sure models predicted extinguishing of life (unless you mean some of it, or pressure on survival) but i do think the models indicated that if nothing was done then more and more damage would have been done, it wouldn't have been good anyway

UV both creates and destroys ozone, solar cycles (11 years) cause mild changes in the balance, the cycles were added to the models used relating to cfc issue as long range (decades) pattern can be seen distinctly from cycle - cfc interrupts process by just breaking ozone molecule down.

It's interesting and also a bit worrying how delicate the natural processes we rely upon are. It's also an example of how things can be done - without requiring widespread concentration of economic or political power

At a different scale check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraethyllead

Another example of something found to be harmful where its possible to make a change without requiring huge change and especially not 'new powers'

findings like these were confirmed by many different groups of researchers. they are about as lacking in contention as it gets.

However these two examples don't mean that every time researchers suggest and issue and resolution in relation to environmental damage we can suspend rigor - it is still worth seeking independent replication, demonstration of predictive power, multiple sources of evidence and strong attempts to disprove it as with any science.

I.e. what i wouldn't do is say "CFC and Tetraethyllead were real therefore overshoot day is true"

Jo22 wrote on Today, 00:14:

I believe that events such as the Earth Day and Earth Overshoot Day are there to raise people's awareness. To make them think, s […]
Show full quote

I believe that events such as the Earth Day and Earth Overshoot Day are there to raise people's awareness.
To make them think, silently, on their own, without forcing something onto them.

Speaking of awareness, during cold war, there were two systems competing with each other,
each of them trying to convince citizens around the globe to be the better one.

That way, citizens in east and west had something to compare.
Especially over here in the two Germanies, with both systems side on side.
Which as such was positive, because it made people think.

However, after UdSSR had folded, there nolonger was such a comparison.
One system had simply won, because the other one had died.
That's as if an athlete at Olympia had gotten the gold medal, because the rival had a heart attack.

i don't want to spoil the line of thinking but maybe this indicates which "system" is better? (at racing anyway 😀 )

I just hope that humanity will eventually leave behind money, mass production and consumption and focus on more meaningful things.

Interesting but it needs a "how", and currently "how" looks worryingly like concentration of state power, surveillance, social credit and "rent everything own nothing"

Maybe it looks like regulation and standards (e.g. every toaster made must be of standard to last 50 years like they used to) ?

Regarding overshoot day, the wikipedia link has interesting criticisms - indeed if someone says "you drank 2 litres and only 1 exists!", its clearly wrong - so really its an estimate about the effect of consuming more stuff now on the future ability to consume stuff? that's my interpretation anyway. as you say, something to provoke thought rather than dictate action

aVd wrote on Today, 08:06:

Jo22 wrote on Today, 07:50:

The way I understand, we're currently living off the future resources of our children and grand children...

Yeah, I could imagine I'm living now on Mars in the first human colony there, which will be just my personal dream or hallucination, but this does not change the crude reality, that I'm still dwelling in the €u-shithole ruled by totally corrupted neoliberal sycopats and sоmеhow still coexist in peace with their paid and free fanatic followers 😀

Well, I guess no one holds you back. You can leave for Russia, China or North Korea, for example. 🙂
They're probably free of EU's "tyranny". Perhaps the experience will enlighten you. Wonders always happen, people say.