The Christian Science Monitor just ran an article about planned Coal To Liquids refineries. Of course the proponents of the technology are pushing it as the saviour of Business As Usual. Meanwhile, the environmentalists are all in a tizzy about the GHG emissions of CTL. Both sides are liars of course since even the best-case figures they produce show there is no future in CTL.

Well, there's some excellent news on the global warming front thanks to NASA. For all the people who aren't praying humanity goes extinct. I suppose that makes it bad news for environmentalists.

The filthy rich and their sellout lackeys would like us to believe the notion that technology, its forms and its uses, are inevitable and socially neutral. They will all roast in the deepest pits of hell for their filthy lies and we will certainly ignore anything they have to say. On the other hand, the notion that technology is inherently neutral but that its development and application are manipulated by the rich and powerful in order to dig in their razor claws into all walks of life is very widespread among the intelligentsia. Now, the fact that technology can be, and is, twisted by those in power in order to benefit themselves is very well documented. But, is technology inherently neutral?

[extracted from Social Implications of Technology by kind permission of myself]

We all know what high speed trains are. And most of us know the difference between real high speed and fake high speed. Let's skip that and get right to what they're for and why an advanced country needs them.

Familiarity breeds contempt, or so the saying goes. And my familiarity with anglo countries has certainly bred my contempt of them. Or has it?