The process of nominee-selection will probably be partisan for the foreseeable future. It isn't so much a question of looking for good Dems or good Reps; it is now a matter of finding candidates who are generally ideologically suitable. How justices will rule isn't always obvious. Blackmun, nominated by Nixon, turned out to be a very liberal justice.

SC justices are not required to be lawyers or lower court judges. Having no knowledge of law would be a disadvantage, but not insurmountable.

Wide and varied experiences outside of the law are important. It is highly desirable that judges come from working and middle class origins, as well as a limited number from the small upper class.

A candidate should be well educated (this does not require a PhD from Harvard, Princeton, or Yale).

@tim wood Per Tim: "Intelligence, knowledge,, honesty,, integrity, character. Pretty much in this order." I left out tim's suggested "wisdom and courage"; both are good requirements if one can define them. We want wise and courageous public servants.

All people are flawed; many, most, all? have significant flaws, along with great strengths. Perhaps we need to think about what kinds of flaws we can and can not tolerate.

Prospective candidates can be winnowed out of the adult population in various ways, and it might be desirable to require presidents to choose from a prepared list. Perhaps presidents could be limited in the number of justices they can appoint. (It didn't bother the Republicans to ignore Obama's last appointment.)

Perhaps the court needs to be enlarged (for practical purposes; they can only hear about 80 cases a year). If it is enlarged, it should be enlarged over several presidentiads, not during the one administration.

The Justices are appointed for life, but there can be an age cap (like 80). Should justices be retired at a given age?

"Reproduction is a Political Act"

So is not reproducing--even more political, really. Reproduction is a default. You have to develop reasons to take the anti-natalist view for which you will receive not much support. It's kind of like advocating socialism in America; it comes close to just whistling dixie.

The first act was you being born. — schopenhauer1

Well, not really.

Our being born wasn't our acts -- it was much more our mothers' acts. Had you been in charge, you would have started out by holding your breath, thus sparing yourself this whole dreary business. We had absolutely nothing to do with our conceptions, either. Nor did we have anything to do with the long line of predecessors, going back 3 or 4 billion years.

Our first act, something that we could claim as our own, didn't come along for some time after being born--sometime when we were around two, and discovered that we could refuse to cooperate. The terrible twos... children learning that they have this nugget of agency.

Antinatalism is an affair of adolescents ("I never asked to be born" she screamed in rage at being ordered to clean up her room) and adults with a particular bent.

It would be a local contingent, like that of community activists, meetup groups, online groups, things like that. — schopenhauer1

Would you have movie nights, pot luck meals, board game and card parties, sing-alongs, dances...? What anti-fertility holidays would you celebrate--Artemis, Athena, and Hestia? Mary was ever virgin but she did reproduce -- though with suspiciously unorthodox methods. Christmas? Jesus didn't reproduce, as far as we know. Dionysius would be a good male god -- I don't think he reproduced, but he did like a wild party (he is also know under the name of Bacchus, he with wine and grapes.) He had a rather unorthodox birth, too -- his mother Semele was zapped while he was in utero, so Zeus sewed up the baby Dionysius in his thigh to finish developing. (Don't try it at home.)

There is "idealistic" antinatalism and practical antinatalism. I subscribe more to the practical version. There are too fucking many of us, and the more people who don't reproduce (up to a point) the better. But by no means is non-reproduction going to result in a better life for the antinatalist. As SSU pointed out, without younger able bodied people to help one along, one's old age will be a wretched affair.

We know what this looks like, because small towns in various places -- Italy, Japan, rural parts of the US, and elsewhere become depopulated. The young leave first, because there is no economic role for them in that little village. The middle-aged leave next, and that leaves the old who can not manage to move, and who weren't taken along by their middle aged children if there were any. The old folks carry on; they help each other if they can, but loneliness and deprivation become their lot.

Having children who live near by (especially daughters) is strongly correlated with quality of aged life. Isolated people usually die sooner, and more often of neglect. Without sufficient wealth to pay for assisted living facilities, one's future can be bleak, if one isn't healthy in one's old age. And it doesn't take all that much to shift from hail and hardy (or is it hearty?) to frail and failing. One bad fall on the ice can be the critical event.

Were we all watched over by machines of loving grace, antinatalism would be more attractive.

The case of Abe Fortas provides an example of adult character failures. Fortas sat on the court for only 3 years ('66 to '69); he was appointed by Lyndon Johnson who later nominated Fortas as Chief Justice. In those hearings politically hostile senators (Dixiecrats) uncovered inappropriate financial dealings and political interaction with the White House while he served on the court. Fortas resigned from the court early in Nixon's administration and was replaced by Harry Blackmun.

Barney Frank and Larry Craig provide another example of acceptable sexual peccadilloes but unacceptable financial activity:

Particularly contentious now are sexual behaviors which if not criminal, are considered extraordinary bad form. But its odd how outrage works:

Rep. Barney Frank (D) survived a scandal involving his boyfriend/employee operating a male sex service out of Frank's home which Frank had (remarkably!) not noticed. Well, I suppose Frank was a very busy man. At any rate, Frank was censured for using office funds to fix his boyfriend's parking tickets, and I suppose for the extraordinary bad form of having a sex ring operating out of a congressional home. Frank was reelected by a substantial margin, however, after the scandal.

The failed effort to censure and expel Frank from the House was led by Rep. Larry Craig (R), whose congressional career went down in flames after he was arrested for propositioning a cop in a Minneapolis airport toilet stall. (The particular stall where Craig sought comfort and companionship became a toilet célèbre which led the airport authorities to dynamite the thing.) Craig might have survived the toilet incident, had he not used campaign funds ($200,000+) for his legal defense.

I consider it appropriate that neither Frank and Craig were expelled from the Senate for sexual behavior. Both of them were nailed on financial irregularities involving their sex scandals--which is appropriate.

That said, BC is a shithead. — frank

Of course it's possible that I am shit head; but it's also possible that I am not. It's probably a matter of your opinion--to which you are, of course welcome.

Honestly, I wasn't flaming. It's what I really think. — frank

perhaps, but you could be lying.

In any event, no law has been broken in this exchange.

Y'all just ignoring this second allegation that I just posted? — Maw

Sorry, I missed it earlier. Well, Kavanaugh and his upper-class friends engaged in a lot more juvenile sexual behavior than ever went on in the State College dorms when I was a student. However, as a college freshman (18 and up) Kavanaugh does have adult liability (I guess... 18? 21?) But it sounds like there will not be solid corroborating evidence in this second account, either: "The Case of the Dastardly Dildo".

I thought women were supposed to remain virgin until married. Is touching a penis as totally contaminating an event as intercourse?

He's dead. — Baden

Not sure if he's dead yet, but this does hammer several more nails in Kavanaugh's coffin.

Don't make me say something rude to you BC. — Baden

Baden, you should take a break and watch an hour or two of funny cat videos on YouTube.

Yet you continue to ignore Blasey Ford, the victim's interests — Baden

She is a victim, at this point, of an unproven accusation, an accusation that will most likely stay that way. #metoo and Blasey Ford make an accusation and you (you being a very big plural here, not the singular referring to Moderator Baden) automatically assume grave harm was done. Maybe it wasn't.

a very credible victim of sexual assault. — Baden

Just guessing that you find them all credible all the time.

And we got a kind of feckless Tina Smith as a replacement. Whoopy doo.

Christ, cry me a river — Baden

That's a crock of laughable horseshit — Baden

Fine, double down on your sanctimony and let me know how deeply you feel and inform me that I couldn't care any less about people being abused. I just find your approach horribly unjust, with less regard for the truth than to simply make a feel good declaration about how supportive you are of those who've been abused. — Hanover

Now, now, now...

The distinguished and genteel, never tasteless or boorish, President of the United States of America does the nominating. All the Senate has to do is say "yay" or "neigh".

throw them under the jail — Hanover

I thought it was "throw them under the bus". You even abuse clichés.

It was! Mom's boyfriend was a Catholic priest back then. Now he's a bishop.

You're kind of going on and on about it. My theory predicts dastardliness of some kind in your history. — frank

Oh, Frank! You have no idea how much dastardliness I have had to endure -- the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune! It's just fucking appalling. It's a miracle from Jesus that I am able to find the strength to wake up in the morning, get out of bed, and go through yet another day of quiet desperation. You know, I can just feel other people's suffering -- such sensitivity comes from all the horrible things that have happened to me--the rudeness, bad taste, ungentlemanly manners, mismatched clothing, calloused hands pawing my private parts -- Frank! You can't even begin to imagine how horrible it is.

Oh, and Frank, you can't predict the past can you?

Does "lying" carry the same weight as "misrepresenting the facts"? We don't know what actually happened. She says one thing, he denies that one thing. It could be that she has come to believes she was subjected to an assault. She brought it up in therapy several years ago (or so I have heard). Did the therapist help shape how she views whatever happened 35 years ago? Did the therapist encourage her to bring this matter to the public? We don't know.

She says something happened; he says it didn't happen. Obviously he is lying. Hrumph.

Why would a woman not tell the truth about what happened?

a) her truth may have drifted away from what actually happened.
b) she might feel some personal guilt about what happened
c) she might resent that someone who was her classmate and who she thinks was mean to her is getting above himself
d) she might not remember what happened. Really? Even after 35 years, one would not remember exactly what happened? How dare you! (fucking male chauvinist pig... asshole... etc) Well, sorry dear, but yes... memory is less reliable than we would like it to be. Every time a memory is summoned, every time we think about something we remember, it is changed ever so slightly. Perhaps it is changed ever so slightly in the same direction, moving from something merely embarrassing to something now viewed as an attack.

What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Maybe Kavanaugh's memory has changed too.

I know I don't remember some events the same way other people remember them. Sometimes the differences have become (I think) quite different.

Memory's failings are one of the reasons statutes of limitation exist. Another reason is that 35, or 75 years later may simply be too long, too late. Too bad. Next time don't wait.

It is true, as you said, that the civil war was a watershed for federal power, brought on by people who didn't like any kind of centralized power, even their own confederacy.

In the original constitutional framework the federal level of government was not designed to be in charge of major policy making. — Existoic

Well, take a look at the 18 items under Section 8: There's lots of potential policy there.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

6: To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

9: To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

10: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

13: To provide and maintain a Navy;

14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government...

18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

There's more, of course, and

Article [X] Reserved Powers
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

is quite important.

But should you become president, remember, as such you don't have a role in organizing a constitutional convention. It's the responsibility of (currently) 34 States to call such a meeting and then (currently) 38 states to ratify it. So you could start in the state where you live and get your state to BE THE FIRST to call for a Constitutional Convention.

We have grown fat and can no longer fit in them. — Baden

Sure you have. And ve have vays of correcting zis problem... So you vill fit.

Kavanaugh, on the other hand, spent most of his life getting off scot-free — Baden

He wasn't accused until a few days ago, so sure, he has gone "scot-free" the same way all of us who could have been accused of something (whether we did it or not) have gone scot free. A little shoplifting, petty theft, slipping state secrets to the Canadians, driving while intoxicating and possibly running over somebody that one time on a dark night in Alabama (Oh shit! that was an awfully big thump!!!), buying some extra Xanax in Mexico and selling them to your step-mother and friends who took too many uppers, torching that outbuilding, getting carried away in the back seat with your girlfriend/boyfriend/or-both and going farther than almost all the way several times...)

At this level of nomination, is anyone really "above reproach" from any angle which members of the pubic are highly invested in? Judges rule on lots of cases -- maybe cases involving workers rights to organize. For me, a judge's decision siding with employers might be a sign of highly reproachable action.

There seem to be quite a few gradations of assault. Stepping (not stomping) on my foot and beating me senseless are both assault and battery but hardly the same thing. Fondling a breast without permission is an assault, but it isn't equivalent to rape. Acting as if one were trying to execute intercourse (except that both parties are clothed) isn't the same as the flesh/flesh contact and penetration of rape.

Andrea Dworkin -- a wigged out anti-pornography activist -- made the crazy claim that an erection was equivalent to rape. Crazy, not merely militant.

Franken was denounced for something a good deal less than assault. "Misconduct?" I don't think it was misconduct -- but it certainly wasn't a crime either.

Sorry, we didn't have country clubs in Ireland when I grew up. Only hovels. — Baden

Ireland has country clubs now? Who allowed this outrage? GET BACK INTO YOUR HOVELS, IRISH SWINE!

It's been reported that the State of Maryland doesn't have a statute of limitations for the crimes of rape and assault. — Pierre-Normand

Maybe Maryland has fewer crimes covered by statute of limitations than other states. It doesn't seem like statutes of limitations are entirely rational. In Minnesota, for instance, trespass has a 6 year limitation while wrongful death gets 3 years of limitation! I would think wrongful death would get more time than trespassing but... I guess property matters more.

MD has some crimes covered by limitation, but it appears that most are not. I couldn't figure out (from a quick search) whether Kavanaugh/Ford would be covered or not.

is lying and about to commit perjury which is a felony and punishable with jail time — Baden

Q: Who has ever lied to Congress? [Who has not ever lied to Congress?] It is a cess pit after all.

A: This might be a tough one to answer comprehensively especially because it is extremely rare to see charges brought. In fact, a study from 2007 found just six successful convictions of perjury or related charges in relation to Congress in the previous 60 years.

Kavanaugh's tailor need not order some nice orange polyester fabric to make his honor a jump suit.

The issue is about criminal sexual activities, not all sexual activities. — Baden

Yes, in this case. But charges were not pressed and the statute of limitation on this event has expired; the alleged perpetrator was drunk, and underage himself. You weren't interested in the alcohol connection to the crime:

No, because I don't care. — Baden

Drunken adults can behave worse than usual; this is even more so for adolescents who generally have less experience with alcohol and poorer impulse control on a good day. But even if they drink a lot, someone is aiding them in obtaining alcohol, which contributed to bad behavior. Alcohol was probably a contributing factor.

Had charges been pressed, had the case been tried and had Kavanaugh been found guilty, he might well have not been able to pursue education. Adolescents should be cut more slack than adults. But even in the case of adults, a relative minor sexual offense can crash a life, never mind a career. A prison record a public sexual offender list can make one untouchable.

If what is alleged to have happened did happen as described, I would still maintain that an adolescent should not be penalized for life.

At the present time, in Minnesota, what happened in Maryland would be 5th degree sexual assault

Fifth Degree – Engaging in nonconsensual sexual contact (not including touching a clothed butt, but including attempts to remove clothing covering victim’s intimate parts if done with sexual or aggressive intent) or knowingly masturbating or exposing one’s genitals in the presence of a child under 16.

Punishment: Fifth Degree – Typically a gross misdemeanor, it’s penalty is up to 1 year imprisonment and a fine up to $3,000.

Predatory Offender Registry - Most of these offenses will get you on the Minnesota sex offender registry. This severely impacts your life, including where you can work and live.

Even adults convicted of low level criminal sexual crimes should not be subjected to life-crashing events, where some public services are rendered unavailable; where suitable work will be difficult or impossible to obtain; where housing may be very difficult to rent, where credit is ruined, and so on and so forth.

What about the victim? People who have been sexually assaulted in a high or low level offense should receive appropriate counseling. Men who are assaulted (violently and sexually) are kind of expected to get on with their lives. I think women should have similar expectations. What is alleged to have happened to Ms. Ford should not have resulted in so much trauma that Mr. Kavanaugh should have forfeited an effective life. And of course, shouldn't forfeit an effective life either.

Violent first degree rape with prolonged trauma and significant physical injury is NOT what we are talking about here, and first degree rape has serious penalties attached, which is appropriate.

If he had come out and admitted it and apologized in an appropriate manner, I might agree that it might not be disqualifying. But what he is doing now by, if it is true, is lying about it and putting his victim through further punishment, which absolutely is disqualifying. — Baden

At this point the case is one person's version versus another persons version, delayed by 35 years time. There is no way to prove very much about this case. You believe women. Baden scores 10 points from #metoo.

It would not surprise me if the boys behaved badly toward the girl. People (males, females) often behave badly.

Kavanaugh could have offered a strategic apology, but he said he didn't do it and is sticking with his story.

I've never been enthusiastic about people's sexual activities being weighed up for political and professional judgement. That's a very old-fashioned attitude now. Franken should not have resigned, should not have been excoriated by the Democratic Party. John F. Kennedy's presidency shouldn't be judged on how many women were procured for him. All this goes for a quite a few other politicians. There are better grounds to reject Kavanaugh (and probably everybody else Trump appoints) than teenage misbehavior. If we were going to hang Donald Trump, he should be convicted on grounds of endangering the nation -- not on being sexually crude and licentious.

How far back should we go to hold people accountable? There was underage drinking going on in that house. There are adults who were responsible for obtaining, making available, or not protecting the teenagers from alcohol. Are you in favor of leveling charges against them 35 years later? If not, why not?

No, heterosexuals should not imitate the culture of practicing homosexuals. — Ram

Ram, homosexuals are not practicing: We're good at it.

With reference to the Trinity, your thread you messed up on by not explicating your opinion...

You are a son; you may be brother; you could even be a father. That doesn't make you three different people. God the father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit are three separate manifestations of 1 god -- God manifested to man. Like you could be father, son, and brother, but you can't be three different people.

Actually, gay people don't want all you heterosexuals imitating us. You all go do your straight breeding thing, and make more good looking, sexy homosexual guys. That is what you are here for. You are free insofar as you obey. Now get busy.

Too doctrinaire for you?

I'm against Kavanaugh just because Trump submitted his name for SCOTUS. He could walk on water and I would still disapprove of his nomination. That he may have attempted rape while he was in a private prep school (another strike against him) is obviously not to his credit, but are we going to judge an at least somewhat inebriated teenagers the same way Harvey Weinstein is being judged?

What matters more than what he did in high school is what he has done since about 1982, 36 years ago (Kavanaugh was born in '65).

freedom, voluntary action, agency, autonomy, responsibility, control, determination — SophistiCat

Because 'determination' is not singular, consistent, or unidirectional, and we seem to have some degree of freedom (so that we can make voluntary choices with executive agency), we can be held responsible--at least to a significant extent.

We can do whatever we want to do (provided armed guards aren't standing in the way), but we can't choose to want it.

So it is that exempting an adult from the responsibility for actions taken with personal agency is a very big deal. That the innocent by reason of insanity (an odd phase) are few in number is a measure of how much we don't want to let people off the hook of responsibility.

I like to go to the local farmers market. All the behavioral cues are there: "fresh", "locally produced", "Organic" (maybe), "farm to table in one step", and so on. There's is a festive community atmosphere (unless it's cold and raining). Quite often a small band will play for publicity. I may think I am freely willing to bike over there and buy food but, in fact, I am being driven to this market by a set of cultural beliefs and habits of long standing. Beliefs are deterministic, and I did not freely choose most of the beliefs I have. Preferences, also never deliberately put together, are also deterministic. Habits are deterministic. Lots of personal and social features drive our behavior.

e.g. 'Screwdriver' means 'a tool created to turn screws' — invizzy

Turn of the Screws? I thought it was orange juice and vodka. Screw turner! Outlandish.

nothing 'perennial' about it — StreetlightX

Well, perennials keep coming up. As opposed to annuals which you have to plant again.

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”
LEWIS CARROLL (Charles L. Dodgson), Through the Looking-Glass, chapter 6, p. 205 (1934). First published in 1872.

Everything begins in mysticism and ends in politics.
Charles Peguy.

You mean, the sex dolls having sex with each other? I suppose that might not be very meaningful, since the dolls would have difficulty developing a decent decadent narrative.

Or possibly you mean people having sex with sex dolls? Whoever heard of such a thing--screwing a piece of inflated plastic! Sex with a sex doll would not be meaningless, however. It might not be a sublime and elegant meaning, but it would have meaning, none-the-less.

Can we have 'choice' if our behavior is 'determined'? Setting aside indeterminate particles, the chain of determination from atoms created in a supernova to what kind of apple I am eating must have branched and branched again many many many times, affecting me and and many other things and creatures many many many ways over the eons of time.

Maybe what we have Is "choice" and not free will. Much of what we think is "free will" is actually just a choice, driven by determination.

Life is too complex for us to figure out what has been determined and how. Therefore we say either "everything is determined" or "nothing is determined" based on deterministic factors that allow us to make choices among limited options. We tend to like certainty. Zero free will is just as comforting as 100% free will.

IF the determined arrangement of one's brain allows for little tolerance of ambiguity, the person might require philosophical views that are cut and dried. They will prefer their theology to be black and white: This and only this is right; everything else is wrong. "We have absolute free choice, so you either choose right or you choose wrong. You freely decided God was dead, and that is wrong. Therefore you will rot in hell forever. Case closed."

Some people are so determined that they tolerate ambiguity well. "What is right, what is wrong, good, bad, true false, isn't black and white -- it all tends to be kind of fuzzy. Maybe god exists, maybe not. It's hard to tell. There can't be any final right or wrong answer."

We can't chose, or will the kind of person that we will be when we are conceived. We are pre-determined. But we will never feel the "master program" pulling us one way or the other. It will all seem like "just us doing our thing that we want to do because that is, in truth, what we will."

Hard determination is the reality; soft determination is the appearance.

as long as they don't lead to what we have seen in Europe in the 20th century — ChatteringMonkey

More recently than the Nazis, the Rwanda and the Balkan massacres come to mind. The Balkans seems to have produced some unusually long-lived and bitter hatreds, about as murderous as those of the Hutus towards the Tutsis. The Communist government clamped down on inter-ethnic conflict, but as we saw in the '90s, once the clamp was gone the hatred flowed as vigorously as ever.

Or visa versa: what holds nations together are strong internal identity and material necessity causes war. Or both.

I do not have enough background to assert that the Balkan war of the 1990s was material and not ethnic. There seems to have been a very strong and long-standing desire to reorganize ethnic distribution, and if possible eliminate some of them altogether (mass graves). Were there material necessities? Don't know.

Israel and Palestine have both material necessity and ethnic identity in conflict. The Middle East may be homogeneous as far as Islam is concerned, but there are various ethnicities and material interests in conflict. Burma wants to be Buddhist and has discriminated against both Moslems and Christians (maybe others too... don't know). How different ethnically the Moslems and Christians are, don't know. Is it a religious or ethnic conflict? China has decided that Uyghurs are an undesired ethnic/religious group.

I would anticipate that in the presence of increases economic, climate, and agricultural stress, groups will seek to solidly their cohesive identities, as well as their material needs.

The best way to avoid a trampling and crushing of minorities as the majorities rush for the exits, so to speak, is to try avoid as much economic, climate, and agricultural stress as possible. Otherwise, prepare for interesting times.

I just can't really see the nation states as the solution for the future. — ChatteringMonkey

We enlightened moderns dismiss the ethnic identities of the rabble, frown on nationalism, disapprove of the nation state, regret the existence of hierarchies, reject religious identity, and so on. We, of course, think of ourselves as transethnic; beyond gender's dictatorship; world citizens; above hierarchy (or would that be below hierarchy?); not religious; etc.

If we want to find the people who are quite out of touch with reality, all we have to do is look in the mirror.

Very large complex societies maintain their internal organization using national identity, gendered roles, hierarchies, ethnicities, religion, race, and so on. The results of maintaining strong internal identity -- identity strong enough to survive world wars, civil wars, regional wars, economic collapse, and so forth are not altogether pleasant, but they work quite well.

I think a nation state that can hold itself together and function in a complex, sometimes destabilized world is a good thing, and citizens, being the primates that we are, need recognizable features to identify with.

Then they can blame "Brussels". In fact, the whole problem is that people can critisize "Brussels" and not their own politicians. — ssu

Americans would like to blame Brussels as well. We are tired of criticizing and blaming Washington, and Washington has grown accustomed to being criticized, excoriated, referenced as a swamp, and threatened with draining. Perhaps American criticism of Brussels would be refreshing to the bureaucrats there.

plan B — ChatteringMonkey

FORGET PLAN B. We will either survive under plan A or we will die. Which, by the way, would not stop the world spinning.

Problems to overcome with Plan B (living somewhere else)

1 Energy

Before we can live in cities orbiting the earth, we have to lift a tremendous amount of weight. Whether we do this with rockets or a space elevator (one end anchored to the earth, the other end anchored to a platform orbiting the earth), a great deal of matter and energy is involved. A lot of fuel is required to boost rockets into orbit (even when they are carrying nothing).

The space elevator is not energy free either. Mass still has to be pushed or pulled away from the earth using a very very thick cable. (The cable has to be thick to hold itself together, before it can carry anything). There probably isn't any form of matter that won't end up being quite a lot of weight to manufacture.

2. Radiation

Once in space, animals, plants, and materiel will be bathed in penetrating visible, solar, and cosmic radiation. There are means to block radiation, but again -- cost.

3. Time

No matter how fast we go, (and the fastest we are likely to go is a very small fraction of SoL) it will take us a very long time to get to anywhere that offers a viable environment for humans, animals, and the plants we depend on. (And this assumes we know where that is at the start of the trip.)

So, whatcha gonna do? Hibernate for 50 years; wake up; leap out of the hibernation box, and suddenly go to work? I don't think so. Live inside a large hollowed out asteroid? Travel in a FTL space ship like the Enterprise with inertial dampeners, detachable saucers, dilithium crystals, et al?

It's possible that we could live inside a large hollowed out asteroid for 60 years, but... doubtful. Remember, we will be voyaging in space as the prickly, somewhat unstable, quite often maladaptive, argumentative, emotion driven primates that we are, and that describes the cream of the crop. I can't imagine a cage of 150 humans locked up together for 60 years with NO EXIT and being either bored out of their minds or suffering repeated crises--some external, most internal--ending up ready to found the EARTH II civilization.