/kc/ - Krautchan

 >>/39792/
> Unabomber and Ellul 
 >>/39792/
> Ideal system for me would be some kind of technologically advanced eco-Utopia with >>/kc/39792/@24678
> If you just keep going with multiplying population, suffering, poverty and pollution (in other words, scaling the industrial system) you will have to deal with consequences described by Kaczynski and Ellul

This is completely wrong. It's not a population problem, the earth can sustain many more billions of humans. The problem is technology, and our metaphysical relation with technology, or what the greeks called it technê and logos into a single worldview.

For quite some time now the elites has been churning out this propaganda that the world is overpopulated, and with this plandemic they have stepped it on a notch. With AI and robots, humans are not really needed anymore for the elites.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=blVTu_emjsA

Good video about propaganda and technology. Technology cannot exist without propaganda. 

For example. Cars are freedom, when they are the exact opposite.

 >>/39793/
The thing is that with small natural settlements you just don't care where to settle, you can't do any noticeable harm to nature outside of civilization and what comes from it. That being said, what you talk about is inevitable and will happen sooner or later anyway.

 >>/39795/
> Have you really read them
Yes, this is why I point this is for me and that this is Utopia. I think that you cannot go back, simply not possible, this is where Kaczynski is wrong.

You can't even find people alike or form any movement to crash it. People would rather stick to 89iq ideologies that aim for extermination of some specific race than to this one, simply because first grants them the benefits of technology, i.e allows them to fight for whatever they want to without ever looking at the actual problem.

But you always can go further, this is why accelerationism is considered to be new trendy thing, and eco-Utopia is located hundreds of years after the hypothetical accelerationism hypothetically succeeds. And again, hypothetically, so this is nothing more but a dream of mine - a world of post-technology.

> This is completely wrong. It's not a population problem
This is now what I'm trying to say, I'm saying that scaling the industrial system multiplies what is written above, not vice versa. So whoever advocates for more technological solutions ends up multiplying the problem they were fighting with in the first place.

Also world is overpopulated indeed, and elites would rather prefer cheap cattle workforce ready for whatever job you give them, which happens with impossibly high competition between them. Look at China, they have so many people they don't even value each other, if they have an accident with you they would rather kill you so they don't have to pay for your medical treatment.

 >>/39795/  >>/39799/
I think you guys approaching it the wrong way.
Population control and technology are just tools, like a hammer. If one strikes the his own nail instead of the nail who's to blame? The hammer or the idiot who is hammering his finger?
The problem is people, their behaviour and the mindset which leads to the actions. People needs to be changed for the "better" whatever that may be.

 >>/39810/
No. Industrial technology as a whole exists to enslave people while making them think they're free, by feeding them all this bread and circus. Again, where does that term come from? Rome. They gave all the Germanic barbarians bread, money and gladiator fights to watch so they wouldn't attack Rome. The same thing applies to today's population en masse, it's just that porn, drugs, video games and other "hobbies" exist in place of physical gladiator matches. Nowadays nobody's going to do anything about the COVID hoax as they're all playing video games, fapping to porn, and smoking pot, perhaps pets and TV dramas for old mothers, "theorising" things we already know. COPING mechanisms. 
People are innately a bunch of pathological liars, due to original sin, but never have they been like this, where all they care about is having nonstop entertainment.

 >>/39811/
> Industrial technology as a whole exists to enslave people
First you blaming technology. But then...
> People are innately a bunch of pathological liars, due to original sin
You say people are the problem, and...
> but never have they been like this
You say they can be different.
So how come you start the whole thing with a "No." when your conclusion is the same as mine?
You just don't go that far to blame the slaver and not the shackles.

I disagree that technology would be something inherently bad (or good), it can be used for whatever we want to use it. It's just that, a tool. And without people, the human mind recognizing it as a tool it's just the same as everything else in the universe.
And today I'm gonna bang a piece of metal with a piece of wood to another piece of wood and see if I can make something that I can call a table. Without applying space age high tech things in the equation.

 >>/39812/
Or maybe I'm gonna just lay down in the grass and eat food from there after I threw out all my tables as the symbols of Evil Technology.

antiind PNG
(541.72 KB, 573x456)

antiind2 PNG
(346.38 KB, 568x308)

 >>/39812/
I'm not trying to create a victimhood narrative. Did common people just start the industrial revolution out of a whim? No. But they will defend it to the teeth, as they love their ease and entertainment nowadays. Industrial technology is to blame and 
> I disagree that technology would be something inherently bad (or good), it can be used for whatever we want to use it. It's just that, a tool. And without people, the human mind recognizing it as a tool it's just the same as everything else in the universe.
The reason why industrial technology can't be considered a tool that allowed humans to use it to fulfill their power process is because the industrial revolution doesn't allow men to do anything, at least after they made that technology. They're using mechanical methods to do everything, even cleaning, even making clothes, and thus men become weak. Charles Galton Darwin (grandson of Darwin) admitted that the industrial revolution will turn everyone into these worker bees and thus create this beehive society, where common people are all sterile eunuchs kept in place with bread and circus, and only the top 1% get to fuck all the women. Not my words; that's Darwin's.
> And today I'm gonna bang a piece of metal with a piece of wood to another piece of wood and see if I can make something that I can call a table. Without applying space age high tech things in the equation.
I never called out making tables, just INDUSTRIAL technology.

 >>/39815/
> I never called out making tables, just INDUSTRIAL technology.
You are right. You always bring up the industrial revolution and its curse.
> I'm not trying to create a victimhood narrative
That wasn't my point, and it wasn't my intention to imply this.
I will reflect the other things, before reply more.

stirner-se... jpg
(40.97 KB, 266x427)

 >>/39810/
From the philosophical point of view you have an entity, not a tool.

When you just start building a system, you have it under your control. For the system to survive, it must have the ability to reproduce, and you inevitably expand the system to the point of self-production, because of the benefits it gives to you. You move from human-made, scalable small technology you can build yourself to technology you cannot build yourself, cannot build without complex factories and techniques impossible to replicate alone with human hands.

After it reaches that point, it becomes a separate entity. You don't control it anymore because it reproduces, because it is global, large and complex. It becomes fragmented between so many people it is impossible to stop everyone participating in such a system and impossible to control it. 

Now you have an autonomous system, and over-system consisting of minds of all people participating in it. You become (the banal phrasing) a cog in the machine, not someone who controls the machine. And machine exists solely to create more machines, to reproduce, to sustain itself.

> Wherever a technical factor exists, it results, almost inevitably, in mechanization: technique transforms everything it touches into a machine.

This is not a tool someone holds and controls when it is going to bash. There is no villain you just have to defeat to solve every problem on Earth. Your life depends on lives and actions of thousands of people you never ever seen in your life, you cannot just blame one cog in being an idiot because every single cog depends on each other.

 >>/39810/
> technology are just tools
This is completely wrong and you should apologize

 >>/39799/
Ellul saw technology (technique) as a autonomous force of nature that determined all aspects of human existence. You don't control your smartphone. Your smartphone controls you. 

 >>/39799/
> and elites would rather prefer cheap cattle workforce 

They have that already. In a technocracy humans are not needed. Even if there would be only 400 million people left on earth, robots and AI would do most of the work.

 >>/39811/
What I may call the messages of Brave New World, but it is possible to make people contented with their servitude. I think this can be done. I think it has been done in the past. I think it could be done even more effectively now because you can provide them with bread and circuses and you can provide them with endless amounts of distractions and propaganda.
Aldous Huxley 

Today it is infinitely easier to kill one million people than to control one million people.
Zbigniew Brzezinski

 >>/39817/
I'm blaming all the cogs. That's what I wrote. The mentality and the mindset of people. Not a people. Not a third party outside the people - eg. the Jews. The people. Us.
> From the philosophical point of view you have an entity, not a tool.
But philosophy is not the practice. It's like when they try to explain history with processes floating above everyone heads and behind the scene. But history in practice is the constant decision making of people. This is how things happen, people decide to do (or remain passive, that is an act too) stuff. Yeah, there are circumstances which allows certain actions to take, but the decision to take that action has to be taken by people. And how they decide will depend on their mindset, their mentality, their morale. This can be changed, it's constantly changing.

There are many disputes over useless things. Like which one is better monarchy or republic. Democracy or autarchy. These arguments are all bs, because all can work just fine, if the right people are getting into the right places. And all systems can go to hui because the selection itself is flawed in all the systems.
I see this debate similarly. Technology isn't evil and it isn't our salvation. If we don't change our way of thinking and moral it will drag us down like concrete block around our ankles in the water.

 >>/39815/
A most succinct explanation of the disaster facing us. Extremely well expressed.

1554981973307 jpg
(621.16 KB, 1716x1710)

 >>/39834/
Well, first of all philosophy helps you understand life much better than everything else, and ironically all our great science founders shared this opinion. Your practice, the action you will take depends on your understanding of it. The better you understand what you deal with, the better action you take. Philosophy here is must-have, IMHO.

Philosophy talks in abstractions, and though they may be hard to grasp at first, they explain thing they talk about very well, because the abstractions help you to abstain from cliches, labels and patterns you are used to, which is essential for rational analysis. And here you start to see patterns, but not in form "this is bad and this is good", but in form of patterns that are peculiar to ourselves, life itself or Universe. And there is very different philosophy. Some is just opinions, some help you form your worldview and attitude, some explain phenomenons, such as technological system.

Back to the subject, you cannot change mindsets of people, because technological process itself forms and influences it. It's not mindset to blame, because mindset is just a consequence, not the reason.

Let's begin from the start:
1. Technology restricts our freedom. Your life depends on power generated miles away, on water given to you miles away you have no control over if they fail. You can't step away from pedestrian line while walking except for specific areas, you are tracked, recorded, you have unwritten requirements for successful existence, such as having a car, a phone, fake-happy social networks to prove you are able to communicate with other people. Any "violation" is condemned.

2. Technology must encapsulate all the resources and be distributed among people for successful advancement, i.e globalism and all what comes from it: culture mixing, everything dumbed down for lowest common denominator, etc.

3. Technology must ensure all cogs function effectively. For this to happen we all must be the same, because homogenic mass is most easy to control. You see our race, biological differences, sex, cultural differences being eradicated. SJWs and progressives just play the role of useful idiots in exchange of power they get for imposing such moral standards to the rest of people, but it is the system that benefits from it directly.

Moreover, when people get frustrated with impossibly high moral standards they are being imposed with, SJWs and progressives take all the blame, while technology slowly keeps pushing the exact same thing behind the curtain.

There must be no nepotism, no violence, and you see it today as every notable case of such is being actively socially condemned, while most people won't give a fuck who did what otherwise.

4. Technological system makes people powerless, frustrated. It puts huge amounts of stress, and then makes advancements to raise the plank of stress a single person can take. It suppresses any violent outbursts, is a reason of most mental illnesses there are, it approves SSRIs and normalizes mentally ill behavior.

4. Technology induces capitalism and capitalism induces technology. Everything we own, eat, drink and do depends on technology in this or that way. 

Everything written above has direct influence on us, how we live, act and what we think. The environment of system itself forms our culture and mindset. What we wear, where we go to, what we will do today, everything has technology in it. We are given "benefits" and profit for advancement of technology, so we as people promote technological advancement. Governments MUST advance in technology or will be conquered by another that has the benefits of technology. We must own technology and be compliant with it to survive.

This is not technology that depends on our mindsets, it is technological system that creates the entire mindset. It is a global environment, and unlike natural environment that does not care what you do to it and allows to shape itself to your wish, the system cares and responds and wants to encapsulate and suppress. See the difference?

If you change the mindset of people, technological system will fail, because it is unable to exist in any different environment where people are not restricted and modified. But if it fails, our entire world fails too, it means loss of billions of lives, so people will never give up the technology.

And as I already said, the only way I can see system failing is accelerating it to the point of failure, and may be then we will be able to overcome the enslavement.

 >>/39848/
> philosophy helps you understand life much better 
As long as you don't know much about philosophy. The more you know the more confused you're gonna get if you want to get direction from it. Students of philo depts of unis doing nothing for 5 years just perpetually debating, proving and disproving every major, minor and passing thought philosophy produced during its ~2500 years of history. Which history produced only two person with actual practical impact: Nietzsche and Marx. And everyone coming after them - and history too - proved that those two dudes were more wrong than everybody else.
Philosophy is nice at one point of a man's life but that's over fast and have to step over it.
If you want useful stuff from philosophy, get logic and pass on everything else. Tho logic is not exclusive to philosophy.

 >>/39849/
> Technology restricts our freedom. 
It is not. With technology you can live independently generating your own power. Similar with anything else.
The state, led by the government restricts your freedom, and the state and the government is just that: people, us.
Not technology that tracks us, but people want to track people out of greed (for ads) or to make themselves feel powerful. Now I don't want to step on the toes of religious people but they did that without technology: confession was a device of tracking for example, or when communist regimes made half of the people informers.
And btw you don't have to participate in fake-happy social networks. In fact most old people don't, and the younger generations step over facebook and just stare at e-celebrities. Only people 20-50 are really participating in that. And even those aren't forced to do that, and what's more they loosing interest fast.
> Technology must
That sounds like a presumption.
> successful advancement
Technology does not advancing for 50 years now. Yeah they made smartphones. Ok, they made transistors smaller - but this decade they arrive to the smallest possible transistors and our life won't be any different.
Creation of social networks is that, social, not technological advancement. People saw a possibility and used the technology to make it. Not technology made them do that. Especially since technology isn't a conscious entity like how you wish to present it.
And at this point I have to reach something you mentioned - it's just your abstraction of tools. Technology does not exist, there are manifestations of it - if you will - transistors, computers, jet engines, hadron colliders, whatever. But actually these stuff exists and you make an abstraction to make up this entity which you can blame for whatever behaviour people presents.
But whomster am I arguing with? Swebernd and Danebernd put forward the idea that technology is the problem.
Anyway, I'm gonna reply to this, because you underlined it:
> The environment of system itself forms our culture and mindset.
Zeitgeist existed without modern technology. Just because modern technology is part of our zeitgeist, it doesn't mean that's the moving mechanism of it. That mechanism is always the people and their mind.
Btw people are also part of the environment. And what you do influences the environment. Most people are like a school of fishes. They move toward where the first one turning moves. You can present a behaviour for others to follow. And you can encourage people to do the same.

I still have this  >>/39815/ to reply in earnest sometimes. Today I'm done however.

images jpeg
(10.87 KB, 225x225)

 >>/39855/
> With technology you can live independently
Independently? No, you can't. Why do you think Kaczynski started to mail bombs? With small scale technology, yes, you can live alone in a natural way. But not with big technology such as generators, because they require support and are built with complex tools, you can't find a replacement part in the wild, and if you seek for support you pretty much depend on technology.

You can be a hermit and live alone, but you will never be independent. It does not matter where you go, everything is covered with laws and borders, that exist thanks to technology. Technically, laws and borders are made up by humans, sure. But objectively it is the technology that allows it in the first place, and people must always follow what technology allows to do to survive, if they don't they will be conquered by those who do, so either way they end up in technology. The initial cause. 

Also, we have only one tribe left intact with civilization, and it already seen the helicopters and boats, so not really even intact. There is no place to hide.

> The state, led by the government restricts your freedom
And why does state exist? Civilization started with technology, it started with the first state. State is built on the ability to accumulate power and resources in one place for a long time, which is simply not possible in hunter-gatherer societies with very primitive technology.

> out of greed (for ads)
And why do ads exist in the first place?

> or to make themselves feel powerful
And why do people feel powerless?

> Technology does not advancing for 50 years now
It advances constantly, next serious breakthrough may happen in like 100 years or more, but that does not mean it's stagnant. Consumer technology always advances slowly. You look in a wrong direction, people actively work on genetic engineering and military.

> Creation of social networks is that, social, not technological advancement
Communicating instantly over the globe in real-time mode? For me it is pretty much a technological advancement. This is what turned media so cancerous, and now media basically rules the world, imposing propaganda with quadruple power.

Sure, it is people who make up the propaganda. But you miss that people pursue some interests, goals and actions that exist only within technological system and cannot exist outside of it, such as accumulation of billions of wealth, law enforcement, arms race, geopolitics, et cetera. You miss that technological system creates that need in the first place, and creates many more needs such as an urge to express suppressed emotions, power and freedom, and then we, the people, create the outlets for such people, not looking at why they need these outlets in the first place. We create them because it is the only logical solution that exists within the system itself, within the system which is the cause of the problem in the first place.

> it's just your abstraction of tools
This is why it is an abstraction, because being that large and complex is starts to behave like an entity, serving its own interests. This is what it is about: it does not matter how you change people's mindsets, if they are enslaved by technology they will have to be compliant with it, they must pull the levers and build the machines, they must behave in a way that does not break the system and benefits the system, in other words they must be the slave of the machine - otherwise it will just break.

It is an entity because it is not just a collective of minds that behaves randomly, it is an entity that behaves in a very specific way, produces our whole cultural environment and ensures its survival.

> Zeitgeist existed without modern technology
Technology is not necessary to be modern, modern is just the most easy and obvious to talk about.

Really it feels like we hit the wall here and just look at different directions repeating what we already said, so for me it will be the best to stick to each others opinions and be done with that.

 >>/39862/
Im not going to argue with you but you need to read ellul and mumford. Start with elluls propaganda book. Technology isn't some beneficial "tool" that humans control nor is it to our benefactor.

 >>/39849/
I still have something to this post.
> Governments MUST advance in technology or will be conquered by another that has the benefits of technology. 
Barely any conquering is done these days. It's companies what expanding, competing for workforce and market and they can bring profits to home which is better than a area of problematic shithole.
> homogenic mass is most easy to control
Wrong. The more diverse, the more heterogenic, the easier to control.
> You see our race, biological differences, sex, cultural differences being eradicated
Nod really. Well, only if your only source about the world is imageboard memes. Especially with sex. How do you eradicate sexual differences? You can't. You just see all these attentionwhoring trannies everywhere so you think that's going on global level. And such news that "Swedish parents dressing boys as girls" that's also an insignificant group but it's good for media generating views for themselves, however the topic is dropped right after and media moves on and everyone else forgets. And anyway sex isn't eradicated by that, that's just a boy in girls' clothes.

There are probably more stuff, but I have to go.

 >>/39862/
I still haven't read this post. Yesterday was a busy and stressful one.

 >>/39864/
Now you could talk to someone about stuff you're interested in, and now you shut up? There must be a special kind of hell dedicated to you for sure.

Been thinking alot lately about uncle ted and if he were a spook. To me, it seems he was a spook based on a number of things, but the cream on the pudding is his stated goals which fit nicely into what the elite has been planning for us useless eaters.

"In "The coming revolution", Kaczynski outlined what he saw as changes humanity will have to make in order to make society functional, "new values that will free them from the yoke of the present technoindustrial system", including:

    Rejection of all modern technology – "This is logically necessary, because modern technology is a whole in which all parts are interconnected; you can’t get rid of the bad parts without also giving up those parts that seem good."
    Rejection of civilization itself
    Rejection of materialism and its replacement with a conception of life that values moderation and self-sufficiency while deprecating the acquisition of property or of status.
    Love and reverence toward nature or even worship of nature
    Exaltation of freedom
    Punishment of those responsible for the present situation. "Scientists, engineers, corporation executives, politicians, and so forth to make the cost of improving technology too great for anyone to try"

Notice this part:

"Love and reverence toward nature or even worship of nature"

This is not something new whatsoever. Lots of elites has been promoting "worshiping" nature, which just means you have to pay your carbon taxes and quit eating meat and become a vegan.

https://www.xprize.org/prizes/elonmusk
Floppyface here offers $100 million for those who come up with a genius idea to remove carbon from the atmosphere. Deadline is 4 years from now.
Plants, the vegetation does that. Where's my 100 mil?

 >>/39923/
> which just means you have to pay your carbon taxes and quit eating meat and become a vegan.
> become a vegan

NEVER

> "Love and reverence toward nature or even worship of nature"

So basically just a rehash of old age paganism that was rampant all over Europe once upon a time

 >>/42531/
I feel like it's just a way for him to shuffle money around so he doesn't pay any taxes for it. Money laundering I think is the word I am looking for?

 >>/39923/
> "Love and reverence toward nature or even worship of nature"
> This is not something new whatsoever.
Probably that's why it sounds good.

 >>/42535/
I dunno if he needs to do stuff like that. I've no idea about US tax policies and his offshore accounts.

6516516816111 png
(865.67 KB, 579x784)

 >>/42552/
> Probably that's why it sounds good.

I don't think it will be so good when people start doing wicked shit and do daily human sacrifices like actual pagan religions

 >>/42602/
> #not all pagan
> #not all the time

 >>/42602/
Although cutting out the still beating heart of captives for Huitzilopochtli sounds a fun hobby.

svv jpeg
(76.47 KB, 1024x576)

 >>/42665/
Well not every single one, but still. Most people will just abandon paganism in the end regardless

 >>/42666/
> Although cutting out the still beating heart of captives for Huitzilopochtli sounds a fun hobby.

> those trips

Until it's your turn to be in the chopping block. Then it won't be pretty tbh

 >>/42671/
Well many pagan traditions and mythological tidbits were transferred into Christianity. One could argue even the Resurrection is a pagan motif.
> Until it's your turn to be in the chopping block. Then it won't be pretty tbh
Yes, being on the block doesn't sound entertaining at all.

FE Veronica... png
(2.63 MB, 1638x2400)

There are a number of other problems other than  >>/33190/ which I mentioned before actually.

As I mentioned, most people are worthless. However, moreso than this, clearing habitats for the expansion of man and the alleviation of overpopulation is both pointless and short sighted. Pointless for the aforementioned but short sighted as populations tend to hove at a level that their environment can sustain. Cutting down jungles to provide space will only increase that level, you are still going to end up with overpopulation as the underlying issues that cause it have not been resolved, you have just created more residential land to overpopulate.

Additionally, jungles play an important role in climate control and in biodiversity, you threaten the climate and cause the extinction of animals only to create more slums.

If Brazil was a colony of Britain none of this would be an issue. African and South American nations should never have been granted independence.

Monarchless states are the bane of the world.

 >>/42679/
Yahweh himself is a pagan god, just one that evolved with a religion that excluded the other gods.

ScientificAmerican100... jpg
(383.08 KB, 942x716)

2017141.Grid-6x2 jpg
(16.46 KB, 330x225)

Xingu1 png
(298.15 KB, 385x396)

AmazonRoads jpg
(121.56 KB, 212x280)

 >>/24886/
 >>/24913/
This?

Baste_Sade... jpg
(640.44 KB, 892x2230)

 >>/42665/
Philosemitism sounds like such a much better alternative.

 >>/42711/
Haven't seen something in that detail, but probably yes, that.

terra-petra jpg
(231.64 KB, 1024x768)

Someone just having a thread about this on kohl rite now.

https://www.archaeology.org/issues/394-2009/digs/8921-digs-amazon-dark-earth
This article says the accumulation of the black soil started 6000 years ago, ~4000 BC. and used consciously as a soil enriching tool from 500 BC by the Pocó and Santarém cultures.
I assume those are two well separable archaeological cultures, named by some locality where they were identified the first time. Pocó predates Santarém, did the latter grow out from the former?

american_scientist jpg
(28.67 KB, 480x480)

Here's another article with a bit moar info. Skimmed it through but still needs a proper read on by behalf.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-some-amazonian-societies-survived-and-others-perished-amid-pre-columbian-droughts/

 >>/42718/
U got an archive or full page screencap?

 >>/42725/
It devolved into a quarrel about "bio"-charcoal. So I did not feel necessary to make a screenshot.

Faszen-egetes-boksa JPG
(386.39 KB, 1024x768)

faszenegetes-szendro-... JPG
(56.05 KB, 417x313)

faszenegetes-szendro-... JPG
(34.66 KB, 417x313)

So what is biochar?
Biochar is just charcoal, they slow burn wood by applying heat to it but not allowing to burst into flames. Essentially the wood itself does not burn, but with high enough heat the long chains of carbohydrates it consist of start to degrade, decomposes into several other things (gases, fluids, solids) one of those is char. In the presence of oxygen, the char bursts into flames as it degrades further and falls apart into its components and finally turns into ashes. This is perfect burning, but without oxygen, after a while the whole wood transforms into char.
What makes it "bio"? The effort to sell everything to greenfags overpriced, even stuff that was used by humanity for thousands of years. Everything "bio-" is better. Biokrautchan is the most eco friendly board on the whole chanverse.

 >>/42731/
Bio-char would imply the existence of non-biological charcoal.

 >>/42746/
It would but there isn't. There is coke, which is made from mineral coal (but mineral coal is also just dead vegetation and animals). They use a bio- prefix to signal it's "healthy". If they would say char, they hype will be less.
Maybe there are different processes to make char, like when one in his backyard slowly smolders a bunch of waste from his garden, or I can imagine "factory made" charcoal, liek putting them into some container which gets heated up enough to turn the wood and stuff into charcoal. But how the end product would differ? And then would the second version be cost effective (one needs energy to heat up something, that needs fuel, with the first method the thing heats itself). Well they probably could sell it for horrible prices (and regulate to death the sale of "home made" char, to kill competition).

You can mine it out of the ground you don't need to make it...

rositas-laughter webm
(689.14 KB, 400x300 vp8)

 >>/42748/

Screenshot 2021-05-24... png
(500.75 KB, 1396x725)

Hmmm. I think we should just nuke the Philippines.

 >>/43778/
Where would dysgenic men go to receive sum fuk?