So its divide and secretly rule perhaps. I just didn't see how the recent (previous) administrations where driving it (consciously at least). Rather I saw it as a system set up to drain wealth from the population into the coffers of the elite. This would require prosperity for it to be maintained. To veer off into fascism would jeopardise this flow.

So apparently QAnon has been largely spread by the senior VP of technology at Citigroup.

At least he got fired for it.

Looks like he was fooling around and when it took off, got into some data mining.

QAnon is big here in the UK now, the've even been protesting in Trafalgar Square. Once someone falls down that rabbit hole, the're almost unreachable.

Normality? Biden and his ilk put the US on this path to begin with.

Ok, not normality, perhaps, a return from insanity to more of the usual. Anyway, will they slink back under their stone? Or is the genie out of the bottle?

But if Biden wins and turns it around, restores normality, what will the proud boys do? Just slink back under their stone?

Agreed. For someone to reach the point of being in power in a large country they will have a strength of character which will enable them to dismiss worries which would be significant for the average person. They are also generally ruthless in the face of moral and political expediency.

A good example is Boris Johnson, a sociopath born with a sliver spoon in his mouth, educated at Eton and Oxford, steeped in an outdated Victorian mentality, with a sense of superior privelidge, walking a path of privelidge right into No10, resulting in an incompetent government.

So youre saying that the scientific community is secretly confident that we're in a mass extinction? What makes you believe this?

I wouldn't use the words "secretly confident", rather, secretly worried. I say this because the scientists who became embroiled in the media circus around claims by climate change skeptics, that the scientists were massaging the statistics on the rate of predicted global warming. Are from my local University, The University of East Anglia, UK.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy.

This episode is important here because it exposes the phenomenon of climate change skeptics, some of whom are funded by fossil fuel exploiters, rubbishing the dissemination of genuine climate science into the public sphere.

From the theosophical perspective, we are presently in the fifth kaliyuga, which would mean the demise and dissolution of the fifth planetary sphere. So no, not the sixth mass extinction from that point of view.

The demise you refer to is of a whole different order of magnitude to what Frank is talking about. The planet will be entirely extinguished.

Unfortunately, from a purely philosophical perspective it is hyper-speculative with a narrow focus on metaphysics. It hardly touches on epistemology and ethics, which is why it remains conspicuously absent in philosophical circles.

This is unfortunate, I had thought of scaling this edifice, philosophically, but eventually realised that the gulf is to wide to span. Particularly as philosophy seems to be going in the direction of post modernism. Theosophy is an exercise in translating Hindu spiritualism into something which can be grasped by the West. As such it is orthonogal to the edifice of Western philosophy.

Right, but just focus for a second on this: the scientific community does not support the conclusion that we're 'presiding over a mass extinction event'

I doubt this, there is a phenomenon amongst climate scientists, in which they shy away from saying anything conclusive, or alarmist, because they risk being dragged into a media circus. So they don't often give their interpretation of the data and leave such conclusions to others.

They walk away before you can even present the truth to them, as if they dont want their belief threatened.

I would question this "truth" and Also I don't see the phenomenon you refer to of protesters over exaggerating the issue. Perhaps this is how it is in the US, but the rest of the Western countries have already passed beyond this point and the crisis is accepted for what it is.

Since extinction is a global-scale event, on a global timescale, if there is a mass extinction in the next few hundred years, then it seems reasonable to conclude we are in fact in a mass extinction already.

Agreed. It's splitting hairs to think otherwise.

Whether and how the elaborately engineered technology of the present could be restarted if it once stopped, I do not know. The operating knowledge wouldn't disappear overnight, but restarting the massive energy system (oil, for instance) would be very difficult. Literacy could certainly be maintained, and we have lots fo books. Books last a long time as long as they don't get wet.

As I say, it depends on the depth of the fall. We could fall through war and feudalism to an early medieval level in which all our advanced technology is lost. Although, I doubt it would be this extreme. I wish I could be more optimistic about warfare, but I can't unfortunately, because there are just to many people in a small space. This hasn't happened before, on this scale and once the instability in the climate begins to bite, with drought, high temperatures, mega storms and the resultant sea level rise, these densely packed people will start to move, migrate, but where will they migrate to? Where will they get their food?

The conclusions in those articles are, essentially, that we are not currently seeing a mass extinction event, but that there may be one over the next few hundred years. That sounds reasonable. Both the Barnosky and Erwin articles add the caveat that if humanity pulls its finger out and stops eroding ecosystems and reduces emissions, that it might not happen. Again this is reasonable, but this is where the problem lies. Is humanity going to stop?

So what people are getting exercised about when they harp on about climate change and the destruction of ecosystems is the inertia in this human behaviour. Is humanity able to reduce carbon emissions, are they going to stop exploiting areas of land where healthy ecosystems are found? The population is still rising, all efforts to reduce emissions keep falling short, or paying lip service to the calls to do something. In areas where there are healthy ecosystems, poverty pushes people through desperation to exploit the land and cut down the ecosystem where they live.

So in reality the desperation is about this inertia, in the knowledge that if humanity does not change its trajectory, things are not going to end well.

One cause for hope is that humanity might fail in some way and through decline, reduce the destruction and emissions. 2020 is a good example, the emissions did fall, the pollution did reduce, because of the global pandemic.

It's a gift from God, the virus. The snake oil salesman is back. He's found the cure, he's going to give it to everyone for free. If God hadn't given him the virus, no one would have known about his miracle.
Hallelujah!
Make America Great again!

Cultural collapse will come when the older generation (whichever generation that is) can not successfully transmit a coherent culture to its children because that culture has been rendered obsolete and irrelevant for the newly existing conditions.

This is the critical point, when the technological pillars of our world cease to function and are cast aside. For example the internet, or electrical computers. If for example we descend into a hundred years of warring groups, internet servers will rapidly become compromised, education could easily become compromised, we might rapidly lose the capability to operate such systems. So how can such knowledge be preserved in such a way that it is not lost entirely, not long I suspect. Over the a hundred years of war infra-structure like electrical generation, oil refining, vehicle production could all be lost.

Once we reach the point where this knowledge is lost, there is a period of a few generations perhaps in which the knowledge is still retrievable. This is critical, because if this opportunity is not taken then the loss becomes profound and we could descend into another dark age and have to discover all the knowledge and technology we have lost again from scratch. Such a dark age could easily last a thousand years and when we progress out of it, we might not develop a society underpinned by a compassionate religion which our current one has. So it could be quite an ugly place.

from divine revelation, I suppose. If you're going to be an idiot, I'll leave you to it.

Its called political opinion, not idiocy.

Some things I have made recently.

I'm impressed with your recent paintings, you have really caught to light in the Pismo beach painting.

This issue is distinct from climate change. Why are you wanting to fuse them?

I was focusing more on the impact on humanity of the changes than on the climate. The mass extinction event could hit hard.

Could you post a picture of your furniture? I love handmade furniture. I have a couple of tables I traded for paintings back when I knew a bunch of wood workers.

I'll post something in the Get Creative thread.

Its worrying in the UK, there are hotspots in the North of the Country. Liverpool was at 450/100,000 and Manchester 500/100,000 as published yesterday. These places are already largely locked down and the rates are still increasing exponentially.

Basically the strategy in the UK is in chaos, with the young, between 18 and about 30 years of age being the main spreaders, predominantly when they returned to University over the last few weeks.

UBI is also backed by the Glib Dems. I think that's going to be a mainstay of the progressive platform in the near future; 51% of voters support it. Thanks, Covid! The Glib Dems in 2010 were also a big reforming party.

That poll was in respect of support packages for the economic crisis caused by the pandemic. The Lib Dems only talk about UBI in passing, they wouldn't add it as a manifesto commitment, they would lose half their base.

Obviously we're both guessing

Obviosly you're guessing.

but I honestly think we'd find more support for UBI than for cancelling road investment and replacing it with public transport and cycle path investment. That shit just doesn't fly. It really should.

Yes, the general public wouldn't countenance either. You really should examine the ideology of your average Tory, Lib Dem and a good proportion of Labour's supporters. Who would laugh UBI out of town. The British public has bought the ideology of no one gets anything for nothing, someone else who's working hard will have to pay for it and that people on benefits, are lazy scum. Do you really think that half the population would welcome wholesale hand outs to the whole population when they think that?

Yes, I'm well aware of all that. I recently moved house and was conscious of sea level rise. I'm now at 56 metres above sea level, I've moved up by over 20 metres.

He's a super spreader.

Wow! Do you ever make custom furniture?

Yes, mostly fitted furniture these days, but occasionally I get a commission for a nice piece of furniture.

In your summary of climate change, I think you missed out the consequence of the mass extinction event we're presiding over. As an example, trees are struggling these days, there are lots of exotic diseases being imported from other parts of the world. We are currently watching all our Ash trees die of Ash Die Back disease, along with Horse Chestnuts trying to survive a voracious leaf minor. There are worrying reports of Oak trees being in trouble next, which will be devastating, as the Uk is populated with a large population of ancient oak trees.

What do you think is alarming? Or is it the scale of the reformist ambition, rather than individual policies?

I'm happy with it, so not alarmed. But a universal basic income would turn off the majority of voters in the UK. And yes the scale of the reform and what is implied in its implementation would be scary for many. Definitely moving to socialism more quickly than Corbyn's plans.

I would say though, that I am referring mainly to older voters, the politics of the younger voter is probably far greener.

Labour under Corbyn did an okay job against Theresa May. Next to Corbyn, the Green Party are centrists.

I suggest you take a look at a UK Green Party manifesto, I'm a Green voter, so I'm happy with it, myself.

I'll give you the one about Venus, I don't get exposed to notions like that were I live.
It's to early for the fall here as of now, we've just had a week of rain, we get battered by the cyclones coming in off the Atlantic at this time of year. I'm looking forward to a nice autumn in front of a log fire. My qualification at the University was on how to make things out of trees, I'm a cabinetmaker.

After all, if the majority thought that climate change was a priority problem, cynical politicians would adopt climate change policy just to get elected and be judged by their effectiveness on that platform.

The problem in the UK is that to vote for rapid and effective action against climate change the electorate would have to vote Green. But a majority of the electorate will not vote Green because their policies, other than their green policies, are radical left policies, real socialism. The UK electorate is not ready to vote for socialism, so they can't vote for effective action on climate change, hence little change.
Fortunately industry is starting to make the necessary changes, which is a step in the right direction, but it does need political change if we are going to move quickly enough.

I said its better to avoid spreading misinformation. You disagree?

I don't disagree, but I see it more as exaggeration than misinformation. Do you have an example in mind?

They do controlled burns for the fuel in the ground. Trump was apparently briefed but didnt understand everything that was said. If you think the forest fires are caused entirely by climate change, you're as wrong as Trump.

The controlled burns would only ever be effective over a tiny fraction of the area concerned. To use the complacency in carrying out these controlled burns as the cause of the extensive wild fires of the last few years is a form of miss information. Anyway, I don't want to get into a detailed discussion of ecological crises, that is for the climate change thread.

My point was that a leader in a position of power through ignorance is spreading misinformation about climate change and worse still has pulled out of the Paris accord and stopped funding the WHO, for petty personal reasons. In the meantime the Co2 emissions are still accelerating.

I understand. More misinformation just leaves people not trusting anyone or over reacting. Better to not shout at all than shout untruths.

This not the case on climate change, the vast majority do trust the scientific message. My point about humanity not cutting fossil fuel use is blaming the policy makers and governments, not the public at large. A case in point, the leader of the free world, Trump, says that the reason there are these large forest fires on the west coast of America, is because the leaves haven't been swept up. Implying that the solution to the climate and ecological crisis of that part of the world is for someone to come along and sweep up the leaves. Over an area of thousands of square miles presumably. Is it any wonder folk hear that and sigh, saying we really are doomed.

So why adhere to such irrational principles?

A wage slave perhaps. In the UK there are people who live from one wage payment to the next and they have to work come what may. Although lockdown does prevent most of this, leaving these people reliant on benefits and vulnerable to eviction and loan sharks etc.

Ive started to realize that the people who broadcast preductions that no climate scientist supports will continue to do so because they don't care about the truth. That's true on both sides of the issue.

The issue is that humanity is not correcting the problem, the fossil fuel emissions are still going up. This may be why some folk start shouting about it.

A bacteria evolved in Japan that eats plastic. It was found at a plastic bottle recycling plant.

Yes, I heard, really interesting.

Civilization may be doomed to collapse (though we truly don't know if it will). Humanity isn't doomed.

This time will be different, we will leave a lot of pollution, a destabilised climate and a mass extinction event.

Are we doomed to experience turmoil? Yes. If that's how you read "doomed," fine.

Yes, I would go a little further, I would define it as a significant collapse in civilisation, a return to a dark age.

The reason we should drop talk of "doom" is that it isn't based on science. When that's the primary message coming from climate change acceptors, it undermines their cause. The climate is changing. We will change with it.

There isn't a cause which needs accepting any more wer're past that point. It is scientifically accepted that we have, or will shortly trigger a number of irreversible tipping points which will release large (or fail in sinking it) quantities of Greenhouse gases. Or will precipitate mass extinction of species.

People like Trump and his supporters who deny this reality are the new flat earthers.

Doom is appropriate because it is also scientifically accepted how easily humanity descends into anarchy and war when the pips squeak.

I don't want to veer off into climate change here, but if you remember this was discussed at length a couple of years ago in a climate change thread.

BBC, the helicopter is about to leave The White House.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-54396670

Trump has just been taken into hospital, a precautionary measure apparently. Although, the White House has a full medical facility.

Interesting report today in the UK (02/10/2020). 770 students have just been found to have Covid in a university dormitory. But only about 70 of them have any symptoms. Meaning only about 1 in 11 people of that demographic exhibit any symptoms at all. Meanwhile only people with symptoms are tested in the UK. So we really have little idea who is infected and certainly aren't doing any kind of effective test and trace. The R number is estimated to be between 1.3 and 1.6even though at least a third of the population is locked down at the moment ( lockdown in the UK is only a partial lockdown). The prognosis is not good.

P.S. Trump has just been taken into hospital.

Yes, it will be heard at the ECJ and Britain has agreed to abide by any decision of the court until 31st of December 2020 and for fours years thereafter. I couldn't say if it will be a judge who decides, but I expect so, as it it a court.

I've heard that the EU is seeking to prosecute the UK, for their intention to breach the contract of the withdrawal agreement, as a signal to the rest of the world that they stand by their commitments and expect their neighbour's who they do business with to do the same. That it is not making much difference in the negotiations, apart from indicating who threatened to renage on the commitments in the agreement and acted in a disingenuous manner, incase the talks breakdown and a blame game begins. The EU has noticed that the UK government has been spreading claims and rumours that the EU is behaving unreasonably, which is actually incorrect. So they are preparing for the blame game

Wonder if the other debates will be cancelled.

Yes, it's the only way he could pull out of them. With a better format, or a mute button, Trump would have been crucified by Biden. Now he will be after the sympathy vote, again stealing the limelight.