Ocean Frontier Fertility: Escape From Vectorism’s Anthrocide

Posted by James Bowery on Monday, 03 April 2006 05:24.

My series on ocean frontier fertility has discussed the potential for white population increase. It did not discuss the negative benefit of such frontiers: escape from the coming anthrocide—the die off of the vast majority of humanity most likely brought about by vectorism‘s promotion of virulence. Although large scale activity on the ocean frontier is long enough in the future to make this topic less than urgent, it is nevertheless timely as a university professor of ecology has, during a professional conference, praised the potential of a new strain of airborne Ebola that could kill 90% of the human population, receiving a standing ovation from fellow scientists. Shades of “Twelve Monkeys”. Current projections of pandemic deaths do not directly kill 90% of the world’s population, but during the next decades, vectorism’s pervasive growth of globalist reach may well provide sufficient virulence and transmissibility to achieve the professor’s goal—a time during which ocean frontiers may be developed and become relevant for demographic purposes.

There is no need to hypothesize a biologist engineering a killer airborne Ebola strain for release on the world’s population to relieve the biosphere of its human overpopulation. Vectorism has done all that needs to be done to bring about anthrocide—the killing of humanity. By promoting laws and norms that punish exclusionary policies, globalization increases “passaging” or “horizontal transmission” for all manner of organisms. This means globalization dramatically speeds the evolution of virulence—the exact opposite of its public relations advertising—which is the evolution of symbiosis.

Moreover, studies of globalization have shown its structure can convert any epidemic into a global pandemic. Globalization’s “scale free network” structure is the same structure required for “no epidemic threshold”. Every fire is a potential wildfire.

The subsystems of globalization that are potentially most immune to this “bug” of globalization are most easily isolated. Ease of isolation entails:

Relative self-sufficiency.
Physical distance.

It might seem that relative self-sufficiency would be precluded by the globalist network’s connections but this is an illusion. If the globalist connections don’t involve the essentials of survival then they can be cut without substantial loss of biological viability—however large the loss of global competitiveness might be. Moreover, not all physically remote systems need be cut out of the globalist network—many will have high value products that can justify the transportation costs.

Both of these features apply to frontier settings where food is being produced for globalist markets. The key is scalability of the production technology so that, when required by global collapse, the production can be gracefully scaled back to subsistence for the families working the facilities. This subsistence level may need to be sustained with stored supplies long enough that alternate sources can be created. This might take several decades. Even though all technologies required may be available via libraries of patent filings as well as a more robust network for communications (simply a reimplementation of the original architectural goal of the networks first designed in the 1960s) there may be critical systems that take that long to fabricate. Although there is a good chance that supplies would present themselves sooner, this is not guaranteed due to the relative difficulty of isolation, hence the rationality of such extreme preparation.

Since large scale oceanic iron fertilization development will take many years to become significant, what follows isn’t relevant for the next decade or two—the time during which exponentiation of such technologies will be taking place in “the background”. Other matters have higher urgency given that globalization’s reach is already pervasive enough to render it a danger—but those dangers are not likely to realize die-offs of 90% of the world’s population. With that caveat it is good to consider the fact that the 90% die-off level made possible by globalization’s vectorism may be realized in a decade or two and therefore what we do during the delay may affect the resistance of the resulting system to anthrocide.

The isolatability of ocean frontier systems is potentially great.

Renewable sources of energy will be essential including, most prominently, wind, but also including solar, wave and ocean thermal gradient technologies. Fortunately, the propulsion required by iron fertilization systems is minimal. Wind is adequate and is already economic under current conditions. Moreover, wind power generation is a growth industry, thereby rendering electrical power a reasonable product from that source as well. Desalination would be the other primary consumer of energy and could be achieved via electrical systems supplied by wind power.

Again, although there is a good chance such systems might achieve subsistence by just converting to simple fishing vessels to exploit fisheries (rebounding from collapsing global demand), this cannot be relied upon. Large scattered coastal populations may still exist and demand much of those fisheries. Continuation of iron fertilization may be necessary. The main problem then becomes maintaining the residual stream of iron salts required for cultivation—potentially for decades. Fortunately there is a ready source of oceanic iron for such a circumstance: Derelict ships. There have been artificial reefs constructed using the hulls of derelict ships deliberately towed to a near-coastal area and sunk. Some of the bio-productivity of these artificial reefs may be due to the additional iron made available from the slow corrosion of the hulls. In any event there is ample evidence that derelict ships can be used and if there is a 90% die-off there will be a supply of such ocean going iron vastly exceeding the requirements of subsistence mariculture.

This corrosion does have its downside, which is that the hulls of the ocean cultivation systems will be subject to the same forces. There are a number of long-lasting coatings used that can preserve hulls for up to two decades without maintenance but this lifetime may not be sufficient for the long lead time to revive critical services. Some method of hull preservation may need to be developed during that limited time and supporting systems given priority.

The upside of such an oceanic isolation system is that due to the huge demographic collapse any substantial population that survives will provide huge demographic leverage and is worthy of the long-term thinking required of us.

Tags: Demographics

Comments:

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 03 Apr 2006 12:53 | #

Academia shelters many a scarcely seen and unlikely reptilian. Here’s one, the gentleman who, apparently, sees no moral issue in recommending the Ebola virus to us. I hope I am wrong and someone who knows the man will see this and offer a corrective. But on the evidence of his home page, Dr Pianka does seem wierd enough to hold such views.

Posted by gwood on Mon, 03 Apr 2006 16:05 | #

I’d like to see this: http://tinyurl.com/fstqz studied further before I moved to an ocean platform.

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 03 Apr 2006 18:24 | #

Freak waves are certainly a significant risk—especially when we’re targeting a high likelihood of structural survival over decades. I have to relegate adequate containment of this risk to the learning curve phase mentioned in <a >Ocean Frontier Fertility: The Near Term Possibility of Bluefin Tuna Production</a>:

As the experience with iron fertilization progresses in these productive environments, it will prove practical to exploit more marginal environments at high latitudes, with their lower total solar flux.

The good news is that the initial platforms proposed for Bluefin tuna production are designed to avoid storms, which means they will be at less risk from freak waves than shipping vessels. This removes one of the barriers to starting down the learning curve previously described. Subsequently, it may prove desirable to make system less mobile, but with lower mobility comes the possibility of making vessels that are more robust. In no case will the iron fertilization vessels suffer from the severe constrants of either oil platforms, which must remain stationary relative to a point on the ocean floor, or shipping vessels, which must routinely pass through harm’s way.

Posted by John S Bolton on Tue, 04 Apr 2006 08:47 | #

There are patents, expired by now, on concrete barges and artificial floating harbors. One involved a string of spheres which absorbed waves of the same height as the spheres, as they rolled in the water. That there is malice against humanity, significantly present among globalizers, and against the white race in particular, is difficult to deny.
To say that they don’t mean it; they’re just trying to be conveniently antiracist, is perhaps overgenerous and trusting.
What is the import of wanting to globalize the world’s unemployment rate, for example?
Wanting to globalize the world’s disease burden, is shocking malice, which would have scandalized De Sade.
Wanting to globalize the world’s technological level, would have given Genghis Khan second thoughts; but not, apparently, the governments’ own professoriate.
The land is not today spoliated beyond hope; while sea colonization has economic and political hurdles, which are evidently a little high just now.

Posted by John S Bolton on Tue, 04 Apr 2006 09:21 | #

Pianka and the eco-monstrosities of government academia, are exactly what one should expect to eventuate from educational systems founded upon mere aggression.
The bright spot is that Pianka and his ilk are dullards, who don’t even know that anything that fast-killing is guaranteed to burn itself out.
More intelligent vectorists would know that the element that is indispensable for the spread of evil, is the vector.
And they do seem to know this, at least in other settings.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 04 Apr 2006 10:24 | #

That there is malice against humanity significantly present among globalizers, and against the white race in particular, is difficult to deny.

To say that they don’t mean it, they’re just trying to be conveniently antiracist, is perhaps overgenerous and trusting.
What is the import of wanting to globalize the world’s unemployment rate, for example?

Wanting to globalize the world’s disease burden is shocking malice, which would have scandalized De Sade.

Wanting to globalize the world’s technological level would have given Genghis Khan second thoughts; but not, apparently, the governments’ own professoriate.

That’s one of the best contributions I have seen you make, JSB. The great question, as always, is why? From whence did this little knot of academic hatred arise and gather itself among the 60’s generation now come to the professoriate?

In the past I’ve tried to argue in Durkheimian style that war begets social instability begets suicidalism, and that self-hatred turned outwards explains the likes of Pianka and his audience. By this light the liberal-left accusation of white racial hate appears as a transference of said liberals’ self-hatred and, as such, an attempt at self-healing (of course, I exclude from this those nominally liberal Jews who make the same accusation).

Can someone please explain the Pianka phenomenon in a more convincing way?

Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 04 Apr 2006 16:01 | #

The bright spot is that Pianka and his ilk are dullards, who don’t even know that anything that fast-killing is guaranteed to burn itself out.
More intelligent vectorists would know that the element that is indispensable for the spread of evil, is the vector.
And they do seem to know this, at least in other settings.

Panka and his ilk are not important in and of themselves. They are simply the most symptoms of a profound underlying disease. You won’t find them committing anthrocide and indeed their visibility and brazen statements make anthrocide less likely.

Vectorists are rarely conscious of the ultimate phenotype they’re expressing.

Posted by John S Bolton on Wed, 05 Apr 2006 09:36 | #

My explanation of all this, is that government growth into the field of ideas, in its essentially aggressive identity, can’t help but favor more and worse propaganda for the increase of aggression.
Destructive lineages will exploit this, but they are parasitical also on the propaganda machinery and its own impetus to redound upon itself and grow.
If the people will remove even one teaspoonful of this aggression in the field of ideas at a time; complaining, withholding support even in small instances where the growth of the state apparatus of indoctrination meets with resistance, the evil wil die back.
It is grossly distended and engorged already; it pleads for compassion, and this means that its sheer size is an impediment to its growth and worsening. We need misers; skinflints who say make do with less.

Posted by John S Bolton on Sat, 08 Apr 2006 09:53 | #

Science and the NYT of 4-7-06 (p.A22) have articles on the aggrandizement of communities which enjoin punishment of free riders, an altruistic punishment which turns out not to be, from the standpoint of the community which can gain and distribute accordingly. I assume you will be posting on this, or someone here will be. This refers to the Rockenbach study.