What you say about "our" political leaders [sic] is true enough, but you don't think the political system is actually left unattended, so that We The People would ever be able to elect a Congress that would liquidate the fossil fuel and other oppressive corporations... do you?

As Uncle Karl said, "The government is a committee to organize the affairs of business." We The People are SOL.

We could have a revolution, of course, and just do away with capitalism. There are reasons why that hasn't happened and isn't going to happen. In order to have a revolution, a popular political movement is required to inform, educate, and organize We The People. Such organizations have appeared. Then what happened? They were vigorously attacked and crushed--like the labor movement in the late 19th and early 20th centuries; the Socialist Party (first third of the 20th century); the Communist Party; and anyone to the left of Attila the Hun (the McCarthy witch-hunt); and the labor movement again in the latter part of the 20th century.

Americans are quite literally schooled to accept the lies of big business. It takes heroic efforts to break through the smoke screen -- literally that, in countering the denials of the tobacco companies in the 1960s and forward (and still not finished).

Careful where you aim your spit, please.

Hold on Olivier5. The stupid crass people and their kids never had a say in the future at any critical stage. The boards of directors of banks, mining companies, power generating companies, auto companies, petroleum companies, etc. are the small exclusive group of people who made the major decisions at critical stages over the last 150 years. Individuals like Senators Mnuchin and Sinema are in a vastly more powerful position than 99% of the population to decide whether we have a strong effort to lower CO2 or not.

What is stupid and crass is sizing up the overwhelming majority of people who had no say about past or future energy policy and calling them stupid and crass.

On the other hand, I agree with you that climate pessimism makes more sense than climate optimism.

In the case of major technological change, Parkinson's law isn't the problem (but it's an otherwise sound principle).

1) Once a technology is created, it takes time for public acceptance. Wind-generation first met with opposition (owing to its unfamiliarity). Opposition in the upper midwest, for instance, is uncommon 25 years on.

2) Production of new technologies takes time to build up and perfect. Worker require training and supply chains need to be created (or repaired--currently).

3) Infrastructure has to be put into place -- another major operation. Wind generation in the narrow band running from North Dakota to west Texas doesn't work unless the transmission lines are in place. Transmission lines (high voltage wires on towers) are very strongly resisted by affected populations.

4) The end user of new technology (the all-electric home or factory for example) require time and financing to be in place. 90% of Minnesotans, for example, heat and cook with natural gas. Transitioning from gas to electricity is another major undertaking.

That's why it takes more time than one might think. And wind generation is just one set of technologies. Solar, electricity-driven transportation for freight, mass transit, energy-use upgrades in housing and business buildings, and so on also require time. We have hardly begun.

Mass addiction to fossil fuel products by the larger public — FrankGSterleJr

The larger public has never had much say in how major new technologies will be deployed. "The People" were not crying out for crude oil. It was people like John D. Rockefeller who decided that his fortune could be made in petroleum. It wasn't the general public who decided that individual cars were going to be the only way to get around. You can thank GM, Ford, et al. They made the decision that America run on cars.

The public has basic needs they have to meet, and corporations provide it, quite often on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.

It isn't the public that is addicted to fossil fuels, it is major corporations.

Here's an interesting fact: There are about 1.4 BILLION cars on the world's roads. Producing and fueling these billion+ autos was / is a major contributor to global warming. The only area we MIGHT get rid of vehicles in the next 10 years is Antarctica (but don't hold your breath).

1). Asia: 518 million vehicles on the road -- 0.14 vehicles per capita
2). Europe: 419 million vehicles -- 0.52 vehicles per capita
3). North America: 350 million vehicles -- 0.71 vehicles per capita
4). South America: 83 million vehicles -- 0.22 vehicles per capita
5). Middle East: 49 million vehicles -- 0.18 vehicles per capita
6). Africa: 26 million vehicles -- 0.05 vehicles per capita
7). Antarctica: about 50 vehicles

There just HAS to be a better idea than replacing 1.4 billion cars powered by internal combustion engines with 1.4 billion cars powered by wind, solar, nuclear, and hydro. We can not conger up 1.4 billion cars and the means to power them electrically without causing further damage to an already ailing world. It isn't the case that what's good for Tesla is good for the world. We used to think that what was good for GM was good for the USA.

Part of @Unenlightened's "poorer and learn to live simple and consume little" will be doing without a car, electric or combusted. Therefore, mass transit or walk. Americans especially find the idea of using mass transit every day bizarre and/or distasteful. We will have to get over that. No flying around for meetings, or lounging on the beach, either.

it's just going to be brutal beyond words — Manuel

There's nothing else I can see that can be done — Manuel

Yes, both.

I am quite pessimistic regarding the chances of success in controlling (let alone reducing) climate warming. The major CO2 / methane / other GH gas producers have too much investment sunk in automobiles, coal-generated electricity, petroleum, meat-production agriculture, plastics, and so forth to make either any changes or rapid changes. It's too late for slow changes.

It is the case that a world economy COULD BE ORGANIZED around renewable energy production, mass transit, sustainable food, fibre, housing production, and so forth, but anything resembling a fast transition (like, by 2035) would produce wrenching, social-shredding dislocations throughout the world. 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. We may have already completed that most unhelpful achievement.

Expect to become poorer and learn to live simple and consume little. — unenlightened

This is a critical part of the solution about which one hears almost nothing. The economic status quo has to give way to economic contraction (in terms of volumes produced and consumed, as well as the kinds of materials). The immediate effect of contraction will be economic depression, probably severe and long, until a new, reduced equilibrium is reached. Given resource redistribution, retraction could be achieved quite sustainably and humanely. Resource redistribution will of course be resisted, as in "over my dead body".

I think the rich countries are simply going to have to open their borders for displaced persons and use their wealth to accommodate them. That is, no status quo anywhere is safe or untouchable. — tim wood

Climate-displacement is going to be a touchstone for all kinds of disruption, everywhere.

the billionaires who are actually humanitarian may be enough to counterbalance the stulted nature of the government in this area. — I like sushi

Actually humanitarian billionaires? Dream on.

I missed the Beats (beatniks) the first time around. They were 'too far out' for my midwestern mind in the 1960s. I don't love their poetry, their novels. In 1965 they would likely have sailed over my pumpkin head. Now I recognize in them a kindred spirit.


A Supermarket in California

BY ALLEN GINSBERG - 1955

What thoughts I have of you tonight, Walt Whitman, for I walked down the sidestreets under the trees with a headache self-conscious looking at the full moon.
In my hungry fatigue, and shopping for images, I went into the neon fruit supermarket, dreaming of your enumerations!
What peaches and what penumbras! Whole families shopping at night! Aisles full of husbands! Wives in the avocados, babies in the tomatoes!—and you, Garcia Lorca, what were you doing down by the watermelons?

I saw you, Walt Whitman, childless, lonely old grubber, poking among the meats in the refrigerator and eyeing the grocery boys.
I heard you asking questions of each: Who killed the pork chops? What price bananas? Are you my Angel?
I wandered in and out of the brilliant stacks of cans following you, and followed in my imagination by the store detective.
We strode down the open corridors together in our solitary fancy tasting artichokes, possessing every frozen delicacy, and never passing the cashier.

Where are we going, Walt Whitman? The doors close in an hour. Which way does your beard point tonight?
(I touch your book and dream of our odyssey in the supermarket and feel absurd.)
Will we walk all night through solitary streets? The trees add shade to shade, lights out in the houses, we'll both be lonely.
Will we stroll dreaming of the lost America of love past blue automobiles in driveways, home to our silent cottage?
Ah, dear father, graybeard, lonely old courage-teacher, what America did you have when Charon quit poling his ferry and you got out on a smoking bank and stood watching the boat disappear on the black waters of Lethe?

Berkeley, 1955
Allen

"Howl" is maybe his most famous poem; Here is the link to the Poetry Foundation text. Below is a link to Ginsburg reading the poem. I honestly don't know if the poetry is better coming out of the authors mouth or not.

Howl, read by Allan Ginsburg

epistemology is what matters — T Clark

What did he know, and when did he know it?

A critical piece of my wrestling match with faith, was whether or not we live in a 'knowable world'. I decided I wanted to live in a 'knowable world' without divine, esoteric mysteries. The turning point wasn't the usual youthful rejection of religion that many seem to experience. I was around 50 at the time. Not that I had been deeply immersed in faith up until then, but I had been struggling to get free of it altogether.

So yes, epistemology is what matters. There are a lot of practical applications in that sentence. It's also humbling to think about how long it can take "to know" something confidently. Curious people were noticing interesting things about rock types and layers well before geology became a science, 100 years on. It took 2 or 3 hundred years to get from an inkling that diseases might have specific causes (rather than 'vapors') to Koch's Postulates in 1875.

John Dvorak's How the Mountains Grew, a geologic history of North America from dust ball to the Anthropocene, is as good a read as a great novel. Putting together scattered bits and pieces of information to read uplift, or ancient erosion, is no small achievement in epistemology. Or, different field, that Sanskrit and ancient Greek were related languages.

In any case it strikes me as arrogant in the extreme to imagine that one can - or worse, should - disregard the accumulated knowledge and research that humanity has painstakingly cobbled together - again, not necessarily just in philosophy - in order to blank-slate oneself to ideas. — StreetlightX

Like 'garbage in, garbage out', nothing in, nothing out.

They have a good understanding of the history of philosophy and the contributions of different philosophers. They usually show respect for the contributions even of philosophers whose ideas they don't agree with. The way they can pull ideas from other philosophers into discussions would be a really neat thing to be able to do. That's what makes me think I may be missing something. — T Clark

Mature, well read, urbane, intelligent people are like that. Those features are more important than the particular field of study--just my opinion. These features are often gifted by one's parents (or not). Genetics, sure, but also by their own style. And luck. One has to have patience and curiosity to read widely and well, but one also has to be lucky enough to be able to do so. Luck has something to do with maturity and urbanity too. If life is too short or too rough, one might not get either one.

shut up, sit still, think. Repeat.

I find most philosophical writing to be pretty tedious, both in its content and its style. Most of it doesn't make any difference! After reading philosophy for years, the learnéd fellow will still put his pants on one leg at a time; he will still need to eat and drink about the same as ever; he'd best get up and move around periodically; he will still sleep around 8 hours a night; the cat box will still need to be tended, as will his own fecal habits.

Actually, a lot of the writings in any field are pretty tedious, whether it's a publication of the Internal Revenue Service explaining Form E-10923-B3, a post-modern journal article on the gender of protons, or the ten-millionth rehash of Hegel (or Hegel himself).

I am 100% in favor of learning -- from cradle to grave. And the world is a fascinating place, full of interesting things to think about. The important thing is that one investigate this world, and think about it.

If all the writings about Yoga, and all the people who know anything at all about Yoga were to disappear, it wouldn't be the end of Yoga. It would be rediscovered and redeveloped. The same thing goes for philosophy: If the whole field disappeared, it would be constructed again. Maybe better. Why? Because the the world abides, and humans will continue to have difficulty coming to terms with it and themselves.

That is my biggest caveat against evangelical Christianity — Leghorn

The hard-bitten Puritans, early exemplars of what would later be evangelical Christianity, believed that it was anything but simple. The 5 points of the Puritan faith were extremely harsh:

Humanity is totally depraved
Salvation is beyond mortal striving
Grace is predestined for only a few
Most were condemned to eternal damnation
No earthly effort could save one

Hard-boiled Calvinism!

The Puritans had some very beneficial influences on the United States, but I find their Calvinism abhorrent.

But yes, salvation can become simplistic and formulaic -- bastardization.

if the love of each other, the love of other people, the love of other people for you, could take away blame... — T Clark

We project human traits onto God and describe them as perfect and transcending or exceeding the human domain. The love that Herbert depicts is perfect. Is our human love capable of transforming ourselves or someone else?

It is, of course. The experience of human love is how we know love can be transformative. Human experiences of many kinds are transformative. In tact, we don't have any experience except human experience--of anything.

So one can read Herbert's poem as an account of human love -- maybe exceptional love, but human love, nonetheless. Do people ever display exceptional love? Yes, sometimes. I wouldn't advise anyone to hold their breath waiting for an example of exceptional love, but it sometimes happens. When experienced, it is transformative -- as much so as the experience of God's love would be.

And by "love" I am not primarily thinking of ordinary romantic love. I'm thinking more about the selfless love of Agape. We might experience Agape and romantic love at the same time, but being the species we are, we'd probably be more fascinated by the erotic aspects of an erotic/romantic love / agape combination.

In objecting to the idea of giving to the poor because one might "entertain angels unaware", some dismiss the angels from the equation. The reason to tend to the poor is that they need care, and there but for the grace of God go I. Never mind angels--they are without need.

It is explicitly Christian.

Why would it have been better had a pagan said it?

LOVE bade me welcome; yet my soul drew back,
Guilty of dust and sin.
But quick-eyed Love, observing me grow slack
From my first entrance in,
Drew nearer to me, sweetly questioning
If I lack’d anything.

‘A guest,’ I answer’d, ‘worthy to be here:’
Love said, ‘You shall be he.’
‘I, the unkind, ungrateful? Ah, my dear,
I cannot look on Thee.’
Love took my hand and smiling did reply,
‘Who made the eyes but I?’

‘Truth, Lord; but I have marr’d them: let my shame
Go where it doth deserve.’
‘And know you not,’ says Love, ‘Who bore the blame?’
‘My dear, then I will serve.’
‘You must sit down,’ says Love, ‘and taste my meat.’
So I did sit and eat.

George Herbert 1593 -1633

Cue the doleful violas.

I heard the poem recited, first time, a few days ago while watching the final episode of the "Chief Inspector Morse" series (BBC). Morse and Sargent Lewis were having a 'pint' as the sun was setting. Morse recited the poem. "The Remorseful Day" was the episode title.

The retirement-aged Inspector was not well, suffering in the end from a perforated ulcer, an enlarged liver, and heart disease. A little bit later in the story, Morse had a heart attack and died. It was the final episode of a wonderful series that had run for 8 years.

A 'good drug trip' is said to require the right setting and the right set. The same goes for poetry, I think. The scene in the television show was the right set and setting.

How Clear, How Lovely Bright
by A. E. Housman


How clear, how lovely bright,
How beautiful to sight
Those beams of morning play;
How heaven laughs out with glee
Where, like a bird set free,
Up from the eastern sea
Soars the delightful day.

To-day I shall be strong,
No more shall yield to wrong,
Shall squander life no more;
Days lost, I know not how,
I shall retrieve them now;
Now I shall keep the vow
I never kept before.

Ensanguining the skies
How heavily it dies
Into the west away;
Past touch and sight and sound
Not further to be found,
How hopeless under ground
Falls the remorseful day.

The EU should hire one of the crack hit squads from Israel who would make sure Donald Trump never set foot in the White House again. They could take care of a few others, while they were at it.

he's got 'em on the list;
and they'll none of 'em be missed!
--per KoKo in the Mikado.

Not in the least. The aim of the smoking ban was to prevent illness from passive smoking, there was only one way to do that (cut down on smoke). Hence the ban. — Isaac

Achieving behavior change for public health benefit is always a long row to hoe. "Eliminate Smoking" has been the public health goal for decades. States that are doing really well still have 15% of their population smoking (and percentages probably won't drop till hard-core smokers die). Second-hand smoke is clearly a huge risk for people who work in bars and restaurants where smoking is allowed. A shift exposes a bartender or waiter to high levels of smoke for 8 hours at day, at least (assuming he or she doesn't also smoke).

But in pursuit of smoking cessation, public health workers have to use whatever persuasive levers are available -- and passive smoke has become a pretty good lever. I suspect that very light exposure to passive smoke is probably a pretty small risk, even if people hate the smell. Especially, when you consider all the other indoor / outdoor polluting chemicals people are exposed to.

(If you live in a basement with high levels of radon (a radioactive element gas that accumulates to hazardous levels in areas like the upper midwest), both active and passive smoking would significantly increase one's risk of lung cancer. Radon atoms get attached to smoke particles which are more likely to get caught in the lung, along with its little radioactive load.

I took me a very long time to adjust to smoke free bars, even though I wasn't smoking when the ban went into effect. It just didn't seem right to have clear air in the bar.

Let me clarify a point: There is a great deal of difference in quantity and quality between a low level of inequality and an extremely high level of inequality. Perfect equality is unobtainable, but a low level of inequality can be obtained. A low level of inequality might be where the average high pay, average large asset holdings, is only 10 times the average low pay, average low asset holding. So, a 25,000 a year wage earner would be on the low end, 250,000 would be on the high end. A low level of inequality also means that most of the people would hold most of the assets. There would not be room for Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg.

have been saying about government protecting the rich, but at the same time we might see how this benefits everyone. — Athena

No need to add to the already celestial-sized choir singing the praises of protecting the assets and asses of the rich.

There are some very significant downsides to the preserved-wealth of the top 1%:

Their wealth is less productively invested now than say 50 and more years ago. The rich and the super-rich tend to put their money in paper instruments which churn 24 hours a day, and produce handsome rewards. (so says Piketty in Capital in the 21st Century). I have not read Das Kapital or Le Capital except in excerpts, so don't ask me about him. He's French, I can tell you that much.

Focusing on paper investments deprives material activity (like developing renewal energy) of much needed capital.

The concentration of wealth in 1% deprives 99% of the population (at least 90% are working class) both income for necessary current expenses and paying off debt; it prevents them from saving for their old age, and in general impoverishes their lives.

The United States exhibits wider disparities of wealth between rich and poor than any other major developed nation. World wide, same thing. "According to the Credit Suisse Global Wealth Report, the world’s richest 1 percent, those with more than $1 million, own 43.4 percent of the world’s wealth. Their data also shows that adults with less than $10,000 in wealth make up 53.6 percent of the world’s population but hold just 1.4 percent of global wealth." (wealth = assets minus debts)

My best economic understanding comes from a geologist who wrote "Mineral Resources and the Destiny of Nations". Mineral resources have a lot to do with history and the future. — Athena

Indeed they do. As the mining industry says, "If it wasn't made from plants, it was mined from the earth."

Do you think 100 billion dollars in assets can be morally accumulated? I do not.

Are we social/ pack animals or not? — Benj96

We are social animals with a fairly wide range of sociability, but we all normally start in groups, and we always require groups, however much we tend toward the solitary.

What traits do you think a successful loner typically possesses? — Benj96

A loner has both a preference for and toleration of solitude--up to some point. Loners belong to the social animal group, so some social involvement is essential (not merely optional). No person is an island, but one has to have some degree of mental self-sufficiency.

Is it better to be alone or part of a group? — Benj96

Loners come out of groups -- family first, then village / school groups, work groups, etc.

There are 2 kinds: loners by choice and loners by exclusion. For either situation, the loner that is somewhat mentally self-sufficient will do better in the long run. Loners by exclusion may be sociable people, but because of very very bad luck (like solitary confinement in prison) may have to adapt, If they can't, then they are likely to be damaged. Loners by choice can also end up being isolated too long, and may develop behaviors that make them less socially acceptable.

I am a loner; I require blocks of solitude to operate well, but I also need periodic social activity. As an 'old loner' now, that doesn't have to be very complicated or extended. As a younger adult loner I needed more social activity, and was able to obtain it without any difficulty.

Street people, as an unhappy group, are composed of various sorts. Some are clearly mentally ill; some are loners by choice; some are not loners but are socially dysfunctional -- not mentally ill but unable to get along in 'normal society' (which can be several kinds of crazy, to be perfectly frank). Some street people are loners by exclusion (teenagers getting kicked out of home by their parents, for instance).

:100: :100: :100:

And the taxpayers are paying for it. — Athena

It's actually worse than taxpayers paying for military might, industry, and government. "Labor produces all wealth." Period. Working people -- wherever the factory is located--Guangdong or Indiana--produce the goods and services that are the basis of wealth accumulation everywhere. The wealth workers produce is harvested by capitalists and concentrated in their hands. The workers are left with no more than it takes to keep them functioning as a class.

As a consequence, workers range from absolutely poor to only relatively poor. Remember, the working class constitutes the vast majority of the population.).

Capitalists, the plutocracy, the ruling class, the kleptocracy--whatever you want to call them--possess an overwhelming share of national wealth -- not just here, but in the G20 in general, though the extreme of wealth is worse here than in most countries.

I am 100% behind pulling one's self up by their own boot straps and my different point of view on this, probably is my age. I could be closer to the generation that survived the Great Depression than you are. — Athena

I was born at the end of WWII. My parents, born in 1905 and 1906, had a rough time from 1929 to 1959, roughly. Too many children, not enough money, too much work -- but a good, reasonably happy family none-the-less. So... I too am pretty close to the Great Depression.

As for the bootstrap lift, as @James Riley pointed out, "We all know it defies the laws of physics to bootstrap." You can pull your boots on with the strap, and that's about it.

Look, most working people owe more than they own. Student loans, credit cards, and mortgages count against any assets they have access to, like their house--for which like as not a bank holds the title. Not only can they not lift themselves up, they are in a deep financial hole to start with. Sure, retired workers may be in better shape than younger workers, but they aren't "wealthy" by any stretch of the imagination.

Uncle Karl summed up the relationship between government and the plutocracy: "Government is a committee for organizing the affairs of the ruling class." Maintaining the capitalist machine which concentrates wealth is the priority of government (which includes the military).

You read history quite differently than I do. True enough, bureaucratization occurred in both Germany and the US (as well as numerous other countries). I don't think a large industrialized economy can exist without bureaucratization.

To put it crudely, is it better to be ruled by Genghis Khan or Emperor Nero than an Aristotelian ideal? — FreeEmotion

Martin Luther said it was better to be ruled by a smart pagan than a dumb Christian.

the depth of philosophical sophistication among politicians. — FreeEmotion

Who, pray tell, expects politicians to have philosophical sophistication (whatever that might be)?

Politicians serve the state and the interests of the state. That pretty much explains the decisions that get made.

Our democracy is now unbalanced and I think this follows the 1958 change in education. — Athena

You are obsessed with the National Defense Education Act and Eisenhower's speech on the Military-Industrial Complex. The changes that you lament (it sounds like an lament, anyway) started much earlier than 1958.

Land Grant schools began with the Morrill act of 1862. The act set aside land in states to be used to help fund higher education. The Big Ten state universities are examples of beneficiaries of the Morrill act--universities like Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Iowa, and others.

Up until the time the Land Grant colleges and universities got up and running, higher education was largely an elite affair. The private colleges were focused on the Liberal Arts and limited their enrollment. The big Land Grant universities had the liberal arts as well, but also institutes of technology, medical schools, business administration departments, agricultural colleges, home economics, and so on. They were far more democratic in their mission and admission policies.

The end of WWII brought a huge wave of enrollment by men returning from the war, at least partly funded by the VA program. The Baby Boom followed their father into college (starting in 1964). This brought about still more democratization of higher education, and yes, a dilution of old academic traditions and practices. The Berkeley Free Speech Moment (think Mario Savio: “The revolt began in the fall semester of 1964 as an extension of either vicarious or actual involvement in the struggle for civil rights.”) was a prominent flash point in the changing higher education culture.

I would agree that democracy in the United States is not in great shape, but I blame the founding fathers. A lot of them wanted democracy for the few, not the many, and to a large extent the is the way things have worked out.

The elite (based on wealth) ran things in the 17th and 18th centuries, continued through the 19th and 20th centuries, and appears to be immovable for the rest of the 21st century. So yes, democracy is unbalanced and has been in this country from the get go.

'm also reminded of Mussolini. Didn't he make the trains run on time? Didn't he coin the term "fascism". Isn't that a condition where there is no distinction between the corporation and the state? — James Riley

Mussolini did invent fascism (an old Roman symbol, the fasces (a bundle of wooden rods and an ax blade). It was a symbol of power and authority -- below is an image of it on a Roman mile stone. Corporation served the state.

I have read that, contrary to his reputation, Mussolini did not make the trains run on time. He did build some decent looking buildings and improve Rome's infrastructure. It was not very antisemitic. The Nazis didn't make the trains run on time, either. German trains had been running on-time since the get-go, under the tight management of the Reichbahn company. German fascism was an economic mess in many ways.

I find it hard to pin down exactly what fascism means today. One scholar said that fascism is better defined by it's methods than its ideology.

@I like sushi. A side note:

Prior to the Nazis, (1920s) the term "race" was still used the way "ethnic" is used now. The French and Finns might each of been referenced as a "race". At the same time, race applied to the major human groups -- Amerindians, Australians, Asians, Africans, and Europeans. The deeper you go into human origins, the more complicated it gets -- because people wandered around a lot; there was species mixing with Neanderthals and Denisovans. Populations were replaced from time to time, here and there, and/or they mixed genetically. Populations died out. All this didn't begin to settle out and stabilize until around 5,000 years ago, give or take a a couple millennia.

Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel is a good explanation of why 2 races (asians and caucasians) came to dominate world history. A lot of it had to do with geography and geology. Asians and caucasians were able to spread out along lines of latitude--east and west. (Climate tends to be similar.). Africans and amerindians were distributed along north/south lines of longitude, along which climate tends to change a lot. Second, Africa and the Western Hemisphere did not provide wild animals that were amenable to domestication. No horses, camels, water buffalo, or cows. Therefore, there were no draft animals to provide power and transportation. Third, Asians and Europeans became somewhat resistant to the diseases they encountered int heir domesticated animals (measles and smallpox, for example). Particularly when Europeans encountered Amerindians, pandemics severely reduced their populations. Smallpox (and other diseases) were worse for Native Americans than the Black Plague was for Europe or Asia.

The upshot is that Europeans and Asians were in a position to expand and dominate--not because they were superior, but because they were geographically lucky.

20th and 21st century racial theorists in the US (mostly) seized upon race, and ideas about racial supremacy -- white supremacy and white privilege -- as the explanation for "Why do Europeans have so much and Africans so little?" Layer on to that the history of global expansion (imperial, colonial) or slavery: and here we are.

People tend to be all alike, regardless of where they come from and (an important corollary) people are not nice. We have to work very hard to be nice. Whoever has the upper hand in any group encounter will tend to dominate the less fortunate, and domination is usually an ugly business.

The CRT and racial theorists tend to believe that if people get rid of bad ideas and replace them with good ideas, all will be well. Unfortunately, as I said, people with good ideas can still manage to be very not nice.

The contrast between patriotism (good) and nationalism (bad) is illustrative. I don't know how one could be a patriot and not be a nationalist as well. Nationalism has been given a quite negative slant in the last 40 or 50 years. I suppose that is because some of our worst enemies have been nationalists, so therefore we should not be.

For some leftists (internationalist socialists) patriotism is as grave a sin as nationalism. They at least agree that the two terms mean the same thing. Patriotism and nationalism have potential negative aspects, for sure. "My country, right or wrong!" is never good foreign policy.

Race hatred is clearly a bad thing. We have seen plenty of that (and not just in the US). I would describe "race hatred" and run of the mill "racism" as different points on a continuum. Race hatred leads to lynching. Ordinary racism leads to segregated suburban communities and schools. White suburbs are not in the same category as KKK terrorism.

Racism has resulted in social structures that permanently disadvantaged racial targets. Cutting blacks out of the real estate expansion of the post-war boom hardened economic disparities. Racial discrimination in employment, accommodations, education, and so on, further cemented inequality into place. Then there is the feedback loop. Well off people don't usually want to live with poor people which leads to further racial separation.

Did I get this from critical race theory? No, just from reading history.

I don't believe in white supremacy, white fragility, and the like. I believe that people are far more alike than they are different. One can count on groups of people pursuing their own advantage. If they happen to be in the majority, happen to have more money, happen to have more power -- then they are going to come way out on top, and those who don't have those assets probably won't.

Only SOME white people had all that. We have a wealthy ruling class and a smaller prosperous middle class. Together, they make up maybe 20% of the population. The rest of the population is working class, and generally they have not done all that well, historically or recently. The majority of the working class has been white. Whiteness didn't help their class status.

Racism blames the losers for not coming out on top. That's just stupid, of course. Poor people, white, black, hispanic, asian, or what have you are usually poor because their parents were not members of the ruling or prosperous middle class. The escalator of upward mobility doesn't start on the basement level.

"Yes but... There are millions and millions of white people who own homes that are worth a lot of money. They are getting rich while we, who couldn't get a mortgage, are getting poorer."

Not so fast. Most working class people do not own the homes they live in. They are in debt up to their ears for much of their lives. They don't have clear ownership of their house until they pay off the mortgage.

House, car, college loans, and credit cards are a sort of indenture. If you want to keep your house, car, and the stuff you bought on credit, you had better be a compliant employee. IF NOT... there are serious consequences. Then there is that degree you worked hard for, paid for on credit, and may not now be able to pay back. Again, there are unpleasant consequences for being a deadbeat.

The people who deserve the envy of the poor are prosperous middle class and ruling class people with enough money to actually pay for the large properties, cars, educations, travel, and so on that they enjoy.

I'm not sure there is a cure for racial hatred. Containing it may be all we can do.

The best bet to reduce racism is for working class people -- black and white together -- to recognize they are in the same sinking boat. It's mostly about money. Follow the money, as the saying goes. Economics explains why a few are on top and most of us are not.

Trying to change racial attitudes in a vacuum, or because they seem like bad manners, is just not worth the effort.

A lot of people are obsessed with race, gender, unequal distributions (of anything) and the like. Like any obsession, it's unhealthy.

I saw a black dog on the sidewalk, lying down but trying to move get up. It was disturbing. On closer examination it turned out to be a black plastic back being moved by a breeze. It was a strong resemblance until once examined, it was not.

The strong scent of some flowers, lily of the valley and lilac in particular, have a semblance (to my nose) of solvent. The semblance fades with dilution.

The scent of limburger cheese (a soft smelly variety) has a strong semblance (to my nose) of the pleasant (to my nose) fragrance of a dairy barn. Silage (which is quite smelly), ground grain (very pleasant) and the earthy smell of the cows. On reflection, the scent of the cheese still resembles the smell of a dairy barn.

Semblances add to the interesting features of experience.

it is true that women's movements came well before two-income families. The rhetoric of women's liberation was in place by "1958", your preferred watershed year (what with Sputnik, the National Defense Education Act and all). Still, the movement of women into the workforce wasn't a simple event.

There was, on the one hand, a booming, expanding post-war economy. On the other hand, the kind of jobs women went into in the 50s and 60s were not generally great jobs. In most cases, the personal rewards of being a 'new woman' in the business environment were pretty meagre. The state did not step in with child-care when American women started working. Women were expected to continue their role of housewife in addition to wage-earner. Not a good deal! Something more compelling than ideology was at work here.

The economic motivation wasn't simply survival, for many families. Upward mobility often required a second income.

Those born into the real middle class (business owners, professionals like doctors and lawyers, upper management, etc.) had more options from the start. The group of strivers we are talking about are mostly working class. The appurtenances of the aspirational middle-class life often required more than one income. A home in a good school district, a better car, the summer vacation road trip, lots of "stuff" all required more money.

The inflation / falling relative wage crunch didn't begin until the 1970s. There were roughly 25 years after the end of WWII where these generational social changes took place.

By the way, the military industrial complex was created in WWII, a good 18 years before 1958. It just got bigger after the war, and is still with us, unfortunately.

Famines are usually caused by politics. Failed or non-existent governments, incompetent or corrupt politicians, liars, thieves, knaves, and scoundrels running loose. It's surprising that there are not more famines than there are.

There have been in the past, and there will be more future famines caused by climate change's bad weather, locust plagues, crop diseases, and drought, even where government has been effective.

One famine presents pretty much the same dilemma as any other. Which side in the Tigray war should we feed--those starved by Ethiopian forces or the rebel Tigray forces? Take your pick. Flip a coin?

Who knows who is next? Ally? Foe?

The world must either prepare to feed many more famine stricken people, or decide to write off millions of people as beyond help. Feeding won't bring about quality government or honest politicians, or rid a nation of greedy parasites. It may not help people living in a failed state in the long run, unless we keep feeding them in the long run.

In the real world, sad to say, people do get written off. The population write off comes in the forms of aid pledges not being paid; of relatively well off nations making small pledges (or no pledges); of arms-exporting states continuing to feed weapons into collapsing, destitute state; etc., etc., etc. No Prime Minister or President is going to hold a press conference and announce that the 20,000,000 people in Pretzelstan should just drop dead and get it over with. But, if Pretzelstan isn't important to the the rest of the world (busy dealing with its own serious problems), then they will starve.

black on black crime was used to deflect from conversations on institutional racism — thewonder

Talking about X doesn't automatically mean you are deflecting Y, rendering Y invisible, denying Y, and so on. X and Y are separate topics. Black on black crime is local, it bleeds and leads, and is very concrete. Institutional racism, sexism, or some other 'ism' is general, usually blood-free, and is abstract. it usually is a political construct (whether it is real or not).

Topic deflection certainly occurs. If I am talking to you about how "banking has historically discriminated against blacks", and you respond by saying, "Yeah, but blacks kill each other at much higher rates than whites kill each other"--that is deflection. if you hold a conference on the history of banking discrimination in black communities, that is not deflecting the question of black on black violence. You are simply talking about something else.

Back in the 70s, if a heterosexual feminist gave a speech about the problems of women in the workplace, one could count on a lesbian activist standing up and accusing the speaker of "rendering lesbians invisible". Lesbians faced workplace problems that were different than, and the same as, those faced by heterosexual women. Then a minority woman would accuse the white woman of rendering minority women invisible. The lesbians and minorities could agree that heterosexual white men were oppressing them, as long as they didn't have to acknowledge each others' suffering. Sometimes race would trump sex, and white women would be grouped with white men as a common enemy.

No matter your political stance, sex, sexual orientation, age, race, ethnicity, class (working, middle, ruling), or your personal history -- someone will always accuse a speaker of devaluing, rendering invisible, ignoring, deflecting, denigrating, and so on. (We could get into how the aristocracy of suffering works, but that's another can of worms.)

Sure, ruling with an iron fist sounds amusing — Ennui Elucidator

Not to me.

I'd very much like to see the revenue statistics for fines levied on criminal activity from traffic transgressions — TheMadFool

Hennepin County (where I live--population 1.3 million) collects $60,000,000 in (mostly) traffic related fines. 17% of the total is a result of moving violations. Please come to Minneapolis and flout our traffic laws. Pay up when you get to court. We weary taxpayers need your help.

20% of the fine revenue is remitted to the state; Hennepin county keeps 80%. A small amount ($3 from a $145 fine) goes to the county law libraries. The percentages vary by county. In most counties in Minnesota it's a 2/3 - 1/3 split.

Federal courts issue billions of dollars in fines for fraud; that is not the same as actually collecting the money from the evil doers.

In 1990 the population of New Orleans was 497,000. In 1910 it was 343,000; today it is 384,000. In addition, the racial and economic mix has changed considerably. These changes can be laid at the doorstep of Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

Katrina wasn't and won't be the last disaster to hit NOLA. When the poor are displaced, they usually do not have the resources to return and rebuild. Some did, but many didn't. So, if the level of violence is less now, this can't be credited to law enforcement.