A nice merged one on conservative American Imperial leaders would be cool. — StreetlightX

Oh, you think that Americans could talk about the Democrats and Republicans together as an entity? Hah! Hard for others too.

You underestimate how successful the two parties have been in establishing a partisan divide between them.

You couldn't do an optimistic scifi movie nowadays. Nobody would believe it. — Olivier5

It's more that people are taught to look at the future negatively and critically. Being optimistic sounds too much as being care free and not being worried about future. It isn't politically correct.

Hence Science Fiction is the best window for the feelings of the day when they were written or filmed. People show actually better the "signs of the times" with Scifi than with anything happening at the present.

It is an interesting point. Just look at the Star Trek movies and series of today and compare it to the original series (or even to the Next Generation). Not much if anything to do with the vision of Gene Rosenberry nowdays. Of course the optimism before the oil crisis is totally understandable. I remember the makers of the absolutely brilliant 60's movie, 2001: A Space Odyssey, did emphasize in an interview that they wanted the movie to be as realistic in describing the technology. If you make a simple extrapolation of the advances is space technology from the 1960's to the next 40 years with looking how the exploration of space advanced from the 1920's to the 1960's, it seems totally possible and realistic.

What the scifi-movies don't understand is the presence of history even in the future and that once a technology has advanced to some level, it remains so as there is no need to improve it.

If you plan x time for doing something, it will take x time (and then some) to do it. — baker

Indeed. And if it is an international program with many countries participating, it will take a lot of bureaucracy also.

For example, the ITER-project, the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, a project on fusion energy, was basically started at 1985 by Reagan and Gorbachev, which replaced the Intor-project of 1979. One participating country has even collapsed during the time the project has gone on...



So, hope they finally get the project done I guess. Completion of the reactor is planned to happen in 2025.

So you were exposed to books critical of the US as a kid? Shocking! I don't know how you managed to survived such deep narcissic wound. — Olivier5

Oh yes, the horror, the horror... :razz:

And how will the future generations do in America with the US?

Climate change was already well studied and non-controversial when I was at school, in the 1970s and 80s. It was not propaganda at all; on the contrary, its denial was propaganda and still is. — Olivier5

I think there is an obvious difference in what is said in a childrens book and what is taught at school. At least here.

Well, they do have anxieties about these issues, rightly so, and our inaction fuels these anxieties. Kids never fully trusted grown-ups, but now they have a very good reason to feel betrayed by grown-ups. Their future is sacrificed on the altar of the Almighty Dollar, Molloch style. — Olivier5

I remember from my childhood what kind of bullshit propaganda was fed to us as children by the "progressive" environmentalists. My educative parents bought these children books for me warning of the perils of pollution, as environtalism was known back then. Of course the real hysteria back then in the 70's and especially 80's was nuclear war and oh boy, did they want to scare us children with that. Those images of burn victims from Hiroshima did look scary for a young boy. And of course, that the US had dropped the atomic bombs wasn't forgotten, Oh no! (Somehow the "progressive" forgot the Soviet Union from the equation) I remember that in my childhood I got very confused and negative image of the US, thanks to leftist progressives in the media and the educational sector. There was hardly anything positive about the US in the media, while Soviet Union was promoted and talked with respect. But then I got the chance to be in the US and wow! It was so different from the depiction given by the leftists. Seattle Washington was a very nice place with friendly people and I really enjoyed a lot my time there, which made my country to look gloomy and an unhappy place with rather unfriendly people.

But coming back to the environmental educative books for children. First it was condescendingly naive, of course, as the target audience were simple children. There were the evil corporations billowing smoke because, they just were to billow perilous smoke and chemicals to the environment, and the solution given in the book was to put filters on the smokestacks and dig the ugly factories underground. Perhaps the filters part was true. But then as now, the real evil was capitalism, especially American capitalism.

The propaganda seems to continue with a similar tone as back then.

It's not the politicians who are making the difference. And not those apocalyptic whiners or those that the media has lifted on a pedestal to preach about climate change with religious fervor using the new lithurgy like you mentioned.

True change happens from the masses of people that we do not know or hear about. The engineers, the scientists, the inventors and those leading the companies and research groups making the change. Those doing the real answer of humanity to the problem are unknown to us and perhaps history will remember them later. We just assume our leaders are so important because they say they are.

If it takes 50 years (a more manageable period for massive global change) we will end up far overshooting the deadline when helpful changes could be made. — Bitter Crank

Well Bitter, I think you are the age that remembers the 1970's quite well.

A lot has changed in the World since the 1970's, so a lot can change also in the next 50 years. Even more quicker. We likely won't be seeing the 2070's, but I'm still optimistic. In general.

When interviewed in MSNBC, a D.C. Policeman Michael Fanone said it well:

"I don't believe Donald Trump was responsible for bringing us to where we are at, the divisiveness that exists in our country. He just exploited it for his personal gain."

Fanone had a lot of trouble to hide his disgust on how the police is drawn to partisan politics. He clearly understood he was on MSNBC and hence being an object to that (even if not so openly as he would be at Fox). Yet he couldn't restrain himself from bunching up those that either assaulted him and his fellow officers with or under a "Blue lives matter flag" and those that are against the police, until they personally need them.

And of course it isn't just the Metropolitan Police. The FBI got the first political pummeling with it's director trying unsuccessfully to do his job and first ended up being the villain first to the Democrats and then immediately afterwards to the Republicans. Funny how instantly the accusations changed and nobody remembered what had been said just couple months ago. Then came absolute mess that happened in the Justice Department in general during the Trump administration. And in the last occasion, it was the armed forces and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that was hurled into the limelight of partisan politics with having to answer a phone call of Nancy Pelosi (and, of course, the phone call went public).

Yes, I personally think the Trump Presidency was a disaster. But this disaster is continuing and spreading and as Fanone remarked, not just because of Trump. The divisiveness isn't going away, it's the new thing in town. Alex Jones, even if barred from mainstream media, has become mainstream in US politics as conservative politicians have surrendered to the conspiracy crowd. Yet if the voters were alienated from the political leadership, likely now the discontent is spreading to crucial parts of the government itself. At least officer Fanone didn't hide his distaste of American politics in the following interview.

The origins of Western religion is interesting and I am sure that Greece was central, but it is probably extremely complex. — Jack Cummins

One key issue in Christianity is that it was adopted by an existing Empire, finally accepted by the ruling class. I think this is the reason why just so much of philosophy of Antiquity is embraced in Christianity. Christianity just swam into existing institutions and society without breaking it. After all, the last existing organizational remnant of the (West) Roman Empire lives on with the Papacy and the Catholic Church. (They still use sometimes Latin, don't they?)

Would have been a bit different if Jesus has had a similar career as Prophet Mohammad: raising an army an conquering his own Christian turf.

The irony is that Dawkins’scientistic approach to empiricism makes his thinking religious in a broad sense. If a belief system is ‘delusional’ , an existential ‘falsehood’, that implies a correct truth, and the scientistic way of thinking puts scientific method in the privileged role among all the cultural disciplines of arbiter of truth as ‘correctness’. — Joshs

I think the down-to-Earth problem is that a person like Dawkins has gotten quite enough of hate mail from Christian fundamentalists that he has become bitter and simply has no respect for religious people, which make his views about them condescending. When it comes to religion, Dawkins is ready for the fight, ready to defend his precious science from creationists. I assume if the topic would be some new breakthroughs in science or interesting theories, he would be far open to discussion. And of course, Dawkins can pick from a multitude of lunatic holy-rollers. It tells something about the public discourse in the Anglosphere. I think Dawkins sees religion as a threat or at least a nuisance to science, and of course his personal experience likely has had an effect on him.

Here in my little country a similar debate between science and religion was started with a professor of astronomy (and a populizer of science) and a local bishop. But it simply didn't catch on in the same way. The professor, an atheist, didn't have to be defensive at all or explain his views just why he is an atheist (Finns aren't very religious, thanks to Lutheranism being a state religion). The bishop had no problems with modern science and was very informed as an academic. Basically neither of them irritated the other side and in the end you had a friendly and respectful exchange of views...which is boring for others than those deeply interested in the subject (and philosophy).

I am less pessimistic. Not all is well, by no means, but not all is terrible either. Never before did so many people enjoy a comfortable life. We have miracles at our disposal people 100 years ago could only dream about. — Tobias

Who cares if povetry at the global level has gone down. It's still me myself and I just hidden in the outrage against the filthy rich, somebody else.

The US is in no position to pat themselves on the back or point the finger at India or China. Such a thing is ridiculous as China is around on par with the UK AND has the ability to make sweeping changes overnight due to their authoritarian regime. — I like sushi

Finger pointing doesn't work. It only irritates people. The blame game is simply stupid. Far more important is a) change in energy policy and b) invest in R&D and changing infrastructure & power production into non-fossil fuel alternatives. And I'll just repeat it once again: to counter climate change, it is the top 10 largest economies that matter and that growth in the developing countries happens with using non-fossil fuel energy. That is possible when renewable energy continues to get the investment as it has gotten as already the prices have dramatically dropped. Little countries don't matter so much.

That the carbon emissions in the US are decreasing is in my view a good thing.

As I in the other Climate Change mentioned, the role of energy policy can be seen from the example of France or Sweden. France consumes electricity 10th most in the World, but in carbon dioxide emissions the country is at number 19. Reason: France depends a lot on nuclear energy. Sweden's electricity consumption is 28th largest, however in carbon emissions the country is at 63rd place.

(One of the worst ways to produce electricity, but in many places the only solution: using personal power generators that run on diesel & gas. Yet in many countries the only way to get reliable power. Nigeria has more power generators than cars.)

The poll results are not very encouraging. — TheMadFool

Think of the encouraging aspect of the poll. Nobody has answered "Don't care".

India are not major contributors to the problem yet. — I like sushi

?

In reality total emissions matter, not per capita emissions. In fact having lower per capita missions means basically that these countries are even more important: they can easily increase their emission if and when the economy grows. It's the US and Europe where per capita emissions can fall.

The 20 countries that emitted the most carbon dioxide in 2018 (total)

1 China 10.06GT
2 United States 5.41GT
3 India 2.65GT
4 Russian Federation 1.71GT

And here's the US per capita carbon dioxide emissions. It's already happening in the US and Europe, the decrease of per capita emissions. India and China are really what we the World should focus on.

There was a time I believe when western philosophy declared truth (verum), good (bonum), beauty (pulchrum) as the primary objectives of (doing) philosophy. — TheMadFool

Apart from the postmodern nonsense, I think those objectives still are present in philosophy. And I should note, even if I'm not an expert on the field, that Eastern philosophy has similar ideas too. Harmony and all that. Of course Eastern philosophy has an even more direct link to religion than it's Western counterpart.

Perhaps just your average teacher of philosophy doesn't dare to say the above. because everything "Western" should be bad as we ought to be "critical", right?

Another quality BBC Documentary: Genius of the Modern World - Friedrich Nietzsche

Please continue. — TheMadFool

Incompleteness. Math has a fatal flaw. Veritasium. I liked it. — GraveItty

Dangerous Knowledge.



I know.

A lot will hate this BBC documentary about Mathematics, the foundations of Math and the incompleteness results, but it's a great series to watch. Not your boring math lecture. If you aren't so familiar with Cantor, Gödel, Turing or Boltzmann. Now perhaps not an "Eureka!" moment, but something very pleasing to watch after reading books about the subject. It's in five part at dailymotion. The link for the first episode below:

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/xdoe8u

Carbon Footprint per capita (I wasn't talking money). — I like sushi

Ah! Well, with more prosperity, India could truly modernize it's infrastructure. India is the third largest consumer of electricity and about 80% of it's electricity production comes from fossil fuels. As being so big as it is and having such potential, the climate change fights front line is in India. For 1 million not to die of starvation annually, I think it would be a good thing.

Being normative is natural. — James Riley

Exactly, and far more useful for us than only being objective.

Another example, perhaps less emotionally charged: often, a given species will overpopulate within an environmental preserve, and authorities are forced to cull the population in order to preserve the biological stability of the particular environment in question. These animals are killed for absolutely no other reason than that, meaning than for the success of the species within that environment. Normally, the purposeless killing of an animal is considered a moral "wrong", but under such particular circumstances it is considered a morally "right" act. In other words, the "mores" in question are not absolute. — Michael Zwingli

Add to this that things are very complex in reality. You can have good intentions while the outcome can be harmful.

If you have to "say it like that" for it to appear as an objective truth, then you simply highlight it's inherent subjectivity, do you not? — Michael Zwingli

Yes. As I've said earlier, moral philosophy is for a reason a different branch of philosophy than let's say logic.

The only objective view is the one that sees everything we do as natural. — James Riley

Unfortunately the thing is that we have to face and answer questions on how things ought to be (as many times not deciding is one fateful decision). That's normative, not objective.

I think you'll find in terms of poverty China and India are miles apart. — I like sushi

And what has been the reason why people aren't dying of famines in China anymore and why they are miles apart?

Economic growth.

Per capita India is nothing. — I like sushi

I wouldn't say that. India has finally started to grow. Thanks goes to abandoning socialist policies and embracing globalization.

(one statistics, with rosy forecasts. But notice that it's per Capita, so population growth is noted here)


A smart thing would be to give aid for India to use renewables and non fossil fuel alternatives in it's buildup of energy production and veer off from coal. A good way to understand just where the problem lies in the use of coal power can be seen from this interactive map "Carbon Brief".

Why, you think moral questions are easy and self-evident? Or that what you or I think are obviously the correct answers? Or just you?

Ok.

So an easy universal issue is that killing other people is wrong. Huge agreement with that, when we say it like that. But how about self-defense? When is it morally right to use lethal force for self defense?
Is it right or wrong to kill other animals? Is it harmful that human society has advance from the hunter gatherers to what we are today? A lot of species have died and there's global warming, yet for "human ecology" our way to mold this planet to serve us has been a great success story. Or how about issues with sex? Or substance use? Abortion?

All those issues that we now see as 'political' and where we see 'cultural divides' emerging on how people answer them.

An agricultural revolution that can be exported to poorer nations would be ideal so anything in that area would be a useful focus imo. — I like sushi

Nice way to say this very important aspect. Yet do notice the huge political implications: modern agriculture is simply industrialized agriculture. It doesn't create jobs, the vast majority of those farmers and peasants (and their children) have to find work in other sectors. Subsistence farming has to go, it only extends povetry as in a prosperous country a subsistence farmer is the poorest of the poor.

Not an easy issue to handle, that's for sure.

One thing is for certain. I DO NOT think anyone should be bullying countries like India. They have problems of their own and it is delusional to expect them to starve their people to death (more than they are already). — I like sushi

So would bullying China then help more? I doubt it, especially when the country is suffering from blackouts. In fact, bullying Americans and Europeans hardly improves anything. Some like that some Greta Thunberg climbs on the podium to chasten the grown ups for not doing much doesn't help (ohhh...we are so bad). As explained well, a lot of the summit will be one huge theater piece.

And HURRY UP. If you don't change your lifestyle, you won't have a life of any style. — unenlightened

What I think the most important is to hurry up technological change and simply make renewable energy simply cheaper than fossil fuels. That's the real change.

You see, the problem is that poor countries cannot implement technological change, but prosperous countries can. They can invest in research & development of new eco-friendly tech and make the leap from the fossil fuel economy. Hence you have to have more prosperous countries, not less of them. And since at least for a while the global population is growing, or economies should grow (or we will have huge tragedies in the future). Unfortunately this thinking goes against the moral vision that prosperity is bad, globalization is bad, we should repent at our sin of consumerism...

Even though it is a demonstrable objective fact that Earth is round (i.e. an oblate spheroid), it is not universally accepted to be so (e.g. "flat earthers" à la creationists). Same for the sustainability (praxes) of human ecology as the objective basis for ethical naturalism (which includes my '(aretaic) negative utilitarianism', etc). — 180 Proof

Did I understand you correctly that you argue that the sustainability of human ecology is the objective basis for morals, what is right or wrong?

That seems more like a tautology, which doesn't help much. It isn't simply that some people are ignorant to the facts that we have disagreement just what is good for the "sustainability of human ecology" and what isn't. People who might disagree with you and me on some moral principles aren't simply "flat earthers" who are or want to be ignorant about facts. These things are inherently subjective.

Moral philosophy, just as aesthetics (or would it be axiology in general) simply are in a different than logic, cosmology, etc.

cults alike were built on – with myths / mysteries even occulted – our species eusociality: that the natural grounds from moral norms are derived via (ecology-/culture-sensitive) defeasible reasoning. — 180 Proof

You might be on to something here. I think it is socially important to have those 'natural grounds' to moral norms that you talk about. Even philosophers try this and make the case for humanism. Religion of course has either gods or a god as the 'natural grounds' for moral norms. Moral norms and what is right and wrong have to be universally accepted in order for a society to work. Religions try to enforce those codes of conduct.

Which actually just shows that there's no objective answer, no logical deductive reasoning for such a subjective issue.

Metaphysics is beyond our reach. Yet metaphysics isn't totally unimportant. And so aren't the things that are subjective to us. What is good and what is bad, just or unfair, morally right and morally wrong. We cannot get an purely objective answer to these questions deducted from some logic. Yet we have had religions to answer these (and philosophy). If people have seen the answers to be good for a long time, no need to discard them because they are old views.

Yet some things do change in thousands of years, so part we can leave to it's own I guess.

They somehow see it as a taboo matter, imo at least. — dimosthenis9

It's not only the atheists. Simply Western democracies who want to uphold freedom of religion and be multicultural (in the positive way) don't simply want to brandish the religious aspects of their heritage. Or especially admit how their core values are partly Christian values. But we cannot escape our history.

Just look at the national flags of the Nordic countries. Do note the symbolism.



And when we enlarge this view to especially Muslim countries, the link between religion and the state is even more obvious and totally clear. Prophet Muhammad was a ruler of the Ummah and caliphs were the political successors to Muhammad. State and religion do go hand in hand.

It seems to me, though, that you may miss the sheer size of the US and its history of having mostly two and only two major parties, third-party candidates only occasional spoilers. A metaphor, if you will: European parties seem to us to be relatively small and agile, like small sailboats in a regatta, close-hauled into the wind, watching the tell-tales and coming about as the wind shifts, or running with the wind, watching to avoid an accidental jibe - in any case with an aspect of active sport, albeit however serious. — tim wood

Ah, everything is happening because of the two-party system.

Actually, the two party situation and that one party can have it all, both the Presidency and the control of the both houses of the Congress, is the structural reason for the "poisoning" of US politics.

First of all, naturally when there are only two parties, coalition governments don't happen. This is one of the most fundamental reasons why the parties can be so estranged from each other: they don't have to be team players. A strong third party would change this. Multiparty politics can at times town down the vitriolic rhetoric as you cannot portray the other party as dangerous madmen and then make a coalition party with them. It's true that multiparty party system can be as bad as the US system, but usually they work a bit better.

Second, you basically have a centrist party and a right-wing party. The left has not been there for a long time in US politics. Some will think it's a blessing, others as the reason for all the problems. Nevermind the democratic socialists like Bernie and AOC, they are in the DNC only to gather the leftist youth vote in a country that never has experienced true leftist policies. In a similar manner "the religious right" is close the GOP, but hardly makes a dent in true politics like a real religious party would make. Now the American voter might notice how limited actually the options are, so it's crucial for both parties to portray the other party as these dangerous loonies who will destroy utterly everything if they get into power. It's to get the voter at least to pick the less worse option. I would emphasize that it's crucial for any democracy to work that all major political stances are represented, because otherwise this leads to voter alienation, which is harmful. When there is no party that many people can find to represent their views, things get ugly. Democracy doesn't work, it doesn't feel at all to work for you. So hell with it, is a typical answer then. That's how the poisoning spreads.

The third crucial thing for the biparty system to survive is that they have convinced that "primaries" are part of the democratic system. The idea that change can be done through changing the political party itself. Actually Donald Trump did breathe a lot of life to this as the old GOP elite did lose it's grip of the party (and basically made it leaderless, as Trump is an orator, not a leader). The DNC with it's superdelegates etc. has been able to handle the theater better with great actors like Bernie understanding their role and sticking to the script.

Finally, the fourth reason is that the two parties have successfully discouraged the American voter of thinking that he or she can really instantly change the political landscape. That this could actually be done quite quickly, if there would be the will. No, this isn't understood. What is thought is that third parties won't work, they will spoil the chances of the "reasonable" candidate, and that it's impossible to gather root support emerging in all of the states. I know this apathy. Finns thought the same way for a long time also, that no new parties can have the ability to emerge. That people will vote for the old parties...because they have voted for the old parties. Well, of course, suddenly there was the anti-intellect people's choice party, the True Finns, which even in it's political statement describes itself of being 'populist'.

So...we got that too. :roll:

Nice article, explaining simply the inevitable result of our Tory Brexit. — Punshhh

In a way Brexit has just showed the consequences of a globalized economy then made to de-globalize. The effects are easy to see...in hindsight. The root cause is that nobody defends globalism, hence either right-wing populism or left-wing populism (that can happen too, take the case of Venezuela as the example) takes over and simply creates a far bigger mess than was to be solved in the first place.

With Brexit it's partly the same as with COVID-19. Suddenly implemented huge restrictions basically cause these complex delivery systems to falter, which are the true foundations that globalization depends on. The basic problem is that the business environment made to focus on the next quarter just looks at what is profitable in the next quarter, again an idea for a globalized world. Hence with travel restrictions for example whole fleets of new passenger aircraft with long service life ahead were sold to scrap. To simply have the planes sitting on the ground and to move them a bit that the tires won't become flat was deemed far too costly. As if to rent or simply make make a concrete/asphalt parking area would be too costly for planes that is basically costs 100 million dollars to replace per item. Better to scrap the planes, get the recycling money and have no worries about the basically planned frenzy for new planes...and higher flight fares of today and tomorrow.



Perhaps a better example of this insanity can be seen in the markets when oil price went negative: people were literally giving money to people take physical oil, because naturally they weren't actually thinking of having the physical stuff, but just playing in the casino with the resource.

Brexit was this kind of experiment with populist democracy that simply made underlying problems apparent: that the UK had relied on a large foreign workforce. Brexit, In my view, was the dear child of the UKIP where then opportunist tories jumped on the populism train.

Wasn't Brexit about this? (Perhaps on the background there ought to have been a mass of truck drivers...)


Perhaps to defend the EU or any economic integration, we should simply shut all trade between countries for a month or two in the winter and then put the populist nationalists to solve the problems by purely domestic solutions. Because...globalization and free trade are so bad. The multi-national corporations are so evil. So when poorer people literally start seeing hunger and rationing food is implemented when in other places the problem is how to get rid of the produce before it becomes a safety hazard, we can all rejoice how good it is to be self reliant and buy only local produce. And how bad globalization and economic integration is.

Origins do have an important role, even if people are unconscious about them. I would agree that for example there isn't the societal role for the church in Western countries as before. Yet if the focus aren't the religious organizations, for example the various churches of Christianity, but the basic ideas that religions promote, religions still have a major influence compared to let's say various schools of philosophy. Perhaps the religious aspects often blend in to what commonly is viewed as "culture" or "cultural aspects" as we don't want to admit the religious undertones in them.

Certainly that is the case in theocracies. In the West it is generally the legal system, no? Which is often at odds with the fading fanaticisms of religious views. — Tom Storm

For many people who aren't basically religious, the foundations of what is right and wrong have come from religion, christianity, islam etc. Not from reading or learning moral philosophers, but basically what their parents have taught them. Surprisingly much of that still is based on religion, even if people aren't devote worshippers anymore and religion has lost ground.

... magic trumps its logic. — 180 Proof

And that's why we talk about is as an issue of faith. If it would all be logical and provable, it wouldn't be a religion, an issue of faith. We would be talking about facts, or scientific theories.

Science (and logic) has obviously increased our ability to make sense of the World around us, yet religion will still have it's role on saying what is right and wrong, just as moral philosophy has. And in those issue there is no reason why religion would lose as it has in explaining objective reality around us (as with genesis stories etc.)

What if our experience in life were a simulation and not reality directly, but reality is 100% identical to the simulation. When we interact with the simulation it has the same effects on reality, and when reality gives feedback it is through the simulation. Is the simulation as real as reality even as an in-between with reality, or must it be fake? — TiredThinker

The simulation is surely part of reality, just are the glasses that people wear. We surely can understand when looking at the world through glasses or not, that the perception can differ. The simulator simply cannot exist in non-reality. The link here is "it has the same effects on reality, and when reality gives feedback it is through the simulation". We wouldn't even call it a simulator, but basically remote control.

This means that we have an effect on reality through the remote control (or we have a simulator). It's easy to think about this with the example of flying a drone through a computer. As the information given back to you from the drone is quite limited (drone camera might be lousy etc), it's easy to make a computer simulator that perfectly depicts you flying by computer link a drone 20 000 ft above the sea 500 km away from you or you truly flying a drone that is flying 20 000 ft over the sea that is 500 km away by a computer. One is just an accurate flight simulator, the other one the real deal. No way for you easily to verify which thing you are doing.

Note that both examples do happen in reality. What differ are the consequences. Let's say you notice a ship below your drone, then decide to crash the drone into the ship. If you are successful in this, then you surely will notice later the difference between the simulator flying and real drone flying afterwards as likely hitting a ship with a real drone will have some consequences more than just losing a physical drone.



Consensus indeed.

I observed some time ago that if Trump were to run and actually win in 2024, then America will get the president it deserves. And then he and the monsters he attracts will eat those who voted for him. But he won't. He got by on fool-us-once, but not on twice. And he'll be too old. I await the news that he's collapsed from a stroke or died outright. As well, there are all of his crimes. Bad joss if he gets away with them. — tim wood

The real issue is that the poison of aggressive populism has taken over one major party with the extremists in control. That actually isn't going to go away. And the other side is viewing this as an threat to the existence of the Republic. Neither the hatred of each other, described with the term "polarization", or "tribalism" and the vitriolic stances will go away. Polarization is the way forward, because moderation or consensus will be balked or seen as "surrender". You see, this isn't about Trump anymore (even if this thread is about the old man): it's the way how dysfunctional US politics has become. It's hostile, paranoid and full of hate and fear. That's the way forward. Democracy doesn't function in this kind of environment. It didn't function in the Weimar Republic either.

Few seem to remember how it was with the Clinton administration. That administration went from scandal to scandal and the GOP understood that they could dominate the political scene with attacking ferociously the Clintons and going with the scandals. We then had an impeachment, which worked as a rallying cry. And somehow when wife Clinton was nominated to be the presidential candidate, the Democrats had somehow forgotten what kind of red cloth she was for the Republicans. Now the Democrats have found the similar vein with Trump. We have had many impeachments. As people know, I do think Trump was a disaster, but the way the media paints Trump as an existential threat does remind very well how the GOP playbook went with the Clintons.

And it won't get better before it gets a lot worse. Elections are going to be the dumpster fires we have witnessed already. That's the real ugly truth.

Follow the money. — James Riley

How about following the stupidity?

The US can in it's foreign and security policy follow illogical, contradictory and unrealistic policies and create it's own alternate reality from the reality on the ground.... because a) it has an armed forces of a Superpower, b) the means to finance the large military operations with perpetual debt financing, c) a system where the foreign policy in these matters is left to the whims of a sitting president, who basically is interested on what will make him look in the next domestic elections, d) a large uninformed public who doesn't care much if the body count of servicemen is low and the most obvious reason d) the US has no counterbalance on the World stage, which would make them think twice.

Because of all the above, the US can find itself in a place like it was with Afghanistan.

The "war is a racket" argument goes just so far, because the military is also a deterrent, hence one can argue also that "peace is a racket" as arms buildup can happen without any actual conflicts. And usually those military arms races are far more lucrative for the military industrial complex. Just look at the starting arms race with China.

Trump made the mess even worse, yes, but the problem for the US is larger than just Trump. The political system in the US is making things worse and the polarization (basically tribalization) isn't just happening because of Trump, even if he is the main actor now on the stage.

I think Andrew Yang explains in this next interview quite well just what is wrong in the US system and why. It's a great assessment that doesn't fall into a partisan side view (even if Yang had been a democrat). A political system that gives power to radicals, a divided media and a social media that alienates people into different camps. Yang goes to detail why it is so.



Europeans should note that this turmoil in US domestic politics isn't going away any time soon. On the contrary, one arbitrary spark could flame it again. And thanks to the dominant position of the American media, we will hear it immediately also.

What you don’t mention is how it was backed by NATO and the UN Security Council, our allies. — NOS4A2

What else could the allies do when the US decides on behalf of them? They could only scramble some troops to assist the US with the debacle. Even my puny country sent some soldiers to assist with the evacuation.

You don’t mention the intra-Afghan talks, anything about the process, and Biden’s failure to live up to and enforce the agreements. — NOS4A2

Just as Trump failed to enforce before him as there was nearly one year of Trump presidency still after the peace deal. And just what is this failure? Remember, it's just to hold talks. Nothing, absolutely nothing else. In fact, the Taliban kept their part of the deal: they did hold talks with the Afghan government. As late as July 18th this year Aljazeera could report:

Delegations from the Afghan government and the Taliban said in a joint statement on Sunday that they will meet again and plan to expedite peace negotiations after two days of inconclusive talks in Doha, Al Jazeera has learned.

The negotiators from the rival sides, who have been in Doha since Saturday, said “the two sides committed to continue negotiations at a high level until a settlement is reached”.

(see here)

Committed to talk....and the other side was also comitted to gain a military victory. But they surely didn't attack US troops! Just the Afghan military and others. So where actually Biden was wrong as he dutifully followed Trump's agreement?

And really, don't you think that if you would sign a peace deal, that would have to mean the cessation of hostilities? Trump, the brilliant deal maker, didn't think so. He was so desperate to get the deal.

Putin, not so much. — James Riley

Exactly. Yet the Russian have a specific agenda: the objective is to increase the distrust Americans have on their government. And have NATO go the way of SEATO and CENTO: to the dustbin of history. Naturally Americans can do this by themselves, but why not help your enemy with this?

Well we accept Orban too but we're not silent about it. — Benkei

One thing for media to criticize foreign governments, another thing for governments of other countries to weigh in. There is a reason that we do have diplomats, because otherwise nation states would ferocious wolves to each other. Nothing would be more easy to spread hostility and discontent between two countries.

Basically the US is like an arguing couple (with Mr & Mrs DNC/GOP) that you have to be with in the same table. The last thing a third party sitting with Mr & Mrs America would want would be to take sides in this heated marriage quarrel. And even if one does want to be outside of the couples fierce fights, the couple will actively draw into their quarrels those who sit close to them (as happened with Ukraine). Honestly, nobody wants to participate in that shit show.

Hence governments will be somewhat calm, but in truth a Trump-Biden-Trump presidency would be really a toxic mix that would put down and out the "Last Superpower". Talk about nonexistent or negative leadership.

So what I'm gathering is that you didn't know the EU is just a partial government. It's not a fully functional government like the USA. — frank

As the name states, it's a Union and unlike the Federation that the US is, it's an union of independent states. No matter what bullshit people in Brussels want to fantasize it being.

The precise term would be a Confederacy, but that term (thanks to US history) has a bad rhyme to it.

So, barring illness Trump will be the next president of the USA, simply by virtue of him not being in a position to fuck things up whereas Biden will. How should other countries react to the fascist douche being elected? — Benkei

If Trump really wins the elections fair and square, then nothing.

Take him as the President of the United States and simply try to deal with him like with any US President.

You should remember that the US Administration is far more than the POTUS. In the end it's the job of the Americans to select their President, not ours.

Just like we will accept what the Dutch choose as their leader.