I know some artists who view existence as bad art. But as artists, they try not to judge. They go create their own art. Sometimes they think their own work is bad. They try not to judge themselves. They enjoy arting. Arting seems to have become an art in itself. They then find the good in that existence piece they didn't like. And then low-and-behold, there is a collaborative masterpiece! Which kind of sucks. So they go art.

I wish I was talented like that.

This has probably already been said, but it seems to me that some antinatalists agree that life is worth living, if only because they limit the prevention of suffering in life to the unborn. They don't champion the idea of killing once a person is out and about. Is this only because the law would increase their suffering if they were to kill? Why not suicide? All of these things seem to indicate that life is worth living. Or is more akin to a confession that once life takes over, it deprives us of the opportunity to be objective about it, and kill it. Life itself is an animal that refuses to die?

A person once told me about a deer that was flopping around in a ditch, having been hit by a car. I got a 45-70 and went to put him down. As I approached, he stood and stumbled. I shot him, point blank, right through the heart. He stood again, and stumbled again. I shot him through both lungs. He stood and stumble through a barbed wire fence and finally collapsed and died. In hauling off to a better location for the coyotes and ravens, I noticed all four legs had compound fractures (bones broke through and through). He also had a large chunk of skull hanging off the side of his head, held on only by his hide. I could see his brain.

After that, I resolved to live.

So I was perplexed about these guys: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/04/06/texas-family-murder-suicide/

Suicide is a thing. I get it. But when I heard they killed their family so their family would not have to deal with their suicide, it made my think of this thread. I guess I don't get. I'll roll with the deer.

"The Right" just as "The Left" depicted as a single actor isn't credible here. — ssu

You are correct. I am embarrassed about that post and I regret posting it. Sad thing is, I knew I shouldn't post it as I was doing so.

My point was this: The left is naïve if they think there is a hero out there who going to save them from the right. The left is naïve if they think those *few* people you refer to on the right don't pose a substantial, credible threat. The absolute trust that is required in intelligence, the military and law enforcement creates a culture where one bad apple can spread and ruin the barrel.

The blue line is wonderful. It's the blue wall that I worry about. We can only hope the right is equally naïve in thinking they will find a leader with the courage and commitment and skill sets of their ideal fantasy. (Remember Trump spun out as Rambo?)

I am fully aware of how the right can look at the left in the same light that the left can look at the right. That is a false equivalence, akin to the media giving time to both sides and then patting themselves on the back for being neutral. That's BS. Lies are not facts. But there are fundamental principles of our form of government that are reduced to writing in our organic documents. America has what I call a tone, and Trump, as a leader, had the wrong tone.

There is someone at the top of every organization. It is incumbent upon them to appreciate the extreme difficulty faced by those below when it comes to interpersonal loyalty. So difficult can that issue be, peers will pretend there is no difficulty at all, capitulating to blind loyalty itself. They will do this regardless of any differences which might otherwise exist.

Every institution has a wall. Law enforcement has a blue wall of silence. Another wall springs from the shared experience of military service. Such a wall is equally as compelling, if not more so. Who is going to care if the man who has your six, or who saved your life, or shared your tribulations, is also a criminal, a racist, a bigot, a fascist, a communist, a misogynist or any other ist? He is your brother, regardless, right? If he slows his roll in response to an incident because he supports the people involved in that incident, then he needs to burn. Otherwise, his peer, who may be ready to go to the incident and do his job will lose faith in the institution he is a part of, and will have every incentive to side with the peer who stood down. Bad apple effect.

It is the job of the person at the top to make sure such difficulty never exists, or is at least allayed. Leadership must honor our tone, and defend to the death all those who abide that tone. Leadership must create an environment where a whistleblower doesn’t need protection, but is, instead, a hero. A virtue must be made of necessity; for the tone itself is a virtue.

Leadership must allow a person to maintain a distance, and vet a peer, prior to developing a friendship or a trust with that peer. And during this period, leadership must itself vet and weed out any who might run afoul of the tone. And leadership must do this weeding before friendships are made; before unimpeachable loyalty is allowed to develop.

This is the difficulty of leadership, because many a vetting process is specifically designed to create a trust and dependence among peers. In boot camp, men are encouraged to help each other without there first having been a determination of an individual’s attitude toward others, or toward the tone. Indeed, this can be a good thing, helping to break down barriers that subvert the tone. But the difficulty of leadership is further exacerbated by the fact the leader himself has risen through that process, and may have, due to a lack of good leadership above, “looked the other way” along the road. One General my give a pass to another, simply because they are in the same clique, attending the same venues. The same vetting process that will allow a black man to trust a white man, and vice versa, is also a process that will allow a hater to slip through. The process of vetting must not only engender trust between peers; it must weed out the untrustworthy threats to the tone.

And the peer, too, has responsibility. You simply cannot be a Blue Falcon if the guy you falcon was never your blue in the first place. Get to know a man before he becomes your buddy. Get to know the tone that an institution aspires to. If it is your tone, then defend it. And sleep well at night after having done so.
If it is not your tone, then find another institution. Let yourself know where you stand, in advance of taking an oath. If you instead try to slip through, spinning tone to your own understanding, selling yourself on an interpretation after the fact, obtaining the benefits of the institution, then you are dishonorable. You are a traitor. Falcon you. And falcon those who whine about the Power Point presentations and other BS designed to weed them out.

If, in the spirit of America and the First Amendment, you want to debate the meaning of the tone, or what this tone is of which I speak, then by all means, join an institution designed for that purpose. Go to a university or elsewhere, and hone your edge upon the best. Or scream alone in the darkness. Run for office. Whatever. But if an institutional understanding of the tone is not your understanding, then don’t join. And if you are not sure if your understanding is in accord, ask the institution itself. But don’t dishonor your understanding of the tone, lest you be dishonorable.

As for the salvageable person, test them, and don’t let them through until they pass. For who knows now who we can trust at the higher echelons? Who knows the extent of the insidious creep of the traitor? Which superior is it safe to blow the whistle to?

Leadership starts at the top. Leadership sets the tone that springs from our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Enforce. Find men and women of leadership and character and spine who, with due process of law, can vet and weed out the traitor. And back their hand when they do it. For, ultimately, the institution is subordinate to the tone.

We are damn lucky Trump was no leader and lacked the convictions in which to have a courage that he also lacked. We may not be so lucky next time.

:up:

Look, tyranny is always a possibility: one of the slogans of the American Revolution: Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. One has to keep an eye on what the government and corporations are up to, and resist if they are brewing tyranny. — Bitter Crank

So true. I agree with all you said (and would add the Patriot Act and the subsequent NDAAs). Your last paragraph is exactly what the insurrectionists of January 6th thought they were up to. They thought they were resisting tyranny. Somehow I think they were over-reacting. Liberals and more government services and taxes does not equate to Pol Pot or even China, but everything is a slippery slope to some folks. Hell, the days they pine for (1950s) were way more taxy and government-programmy than we are today. Somebody has been drinking Kool Aid. Vigilance is good. But vigilance without education is paranoia (Q).

The Trump crowd hadn't been violent before. And of course, Trump didn't respond to the riot, obviously, but just looked at how events unfolded. Simple as that, actually. — ssu

The Trump crowd doesn't need to be violent when they sport AR-15s and the cops don't give them shit (Michigan, Wisconsin, etc.). But the chatter was all about rolling over resistance. And they did exactly that. Had it been BLM, now way.

Well, you go with the polarization of your country then, if you want. . . . Think of your fellow citizens as the enemy then, if you like it. Some seen to do so. — ssu

I'm one of those who stayed home too. That doesn't stop me from having an opinion.

This is probably not fair of me, because I should refine my argument first, before using it, especially when calling upon analogy. But I liken this situation to the movie Platoon. If you haven't seen it, I highly recommend it. If you are not inclined, then that is my fault for leaving it at that, without first finishing the argument in support of the analogy. But if you are inclined, or familiar, my outline is this:

Cop who shot woman = Chris
Women who got shot = S.Sgt Barnes
Cop who was killed = Sgt. Elias
Traitors at large = Sgt. O’Neill
Cops who were confused = Big Harold
Putin = NVA
United States = United States
Trump = one off. I can’t recall anyone in history so far off the rails. Even Trump's followers have morals. I may not agree them, but they at least have them.

It is evidence of the fragility of democracy when Sgt. Elias is killed, leaving it to an airstrike on our own positions to create an opening for Chris to shoot Barnes. I’m just naïve enough to think our ranks are full of Sgt. Elias types. And that they all recognize the Barnes’ of the world as the Blue Falcons that they are. Perhaps I am like Big Harold in that regard.

But polarization? Yeah. Blue Falcons are the heroes of the right, all while they stupidly think Sgt. Elias was the Blue Falcon. He wasn't. We lucked out that the NVA and the U.S. got together and created an opening for Chris. Barnes was off the rails and leadership failed to line him out.

The lesson is to correct this shit now. When you strike the King and fail, you need to burn. If the right wants to bury the hatchet, they need to confess the error of their ways first. They brought this shit on themselves. They are back under the fridge for now. But we have to assume they are planning. And they may be hiding in an among our intelligence, law enforcement and military communities. If all they do is drag their feet we'll be lucky.

Thanks for the leads. I've had a lot of thoughts running around the old brain pan on the animal thing all my life. It will be interesting to see the thoughts of those who have actually thought about it with a more analytic thoroughness.

The fact that he took the time and went through the Hell that he did to do the whole presidency thing is telling. — synthesis

It ain't hell for one who craves center stage. It's the limelight, and heaven, and he loved it. He is in hell now, where no one is listening except losers and suckers.

Who would bring such a thing on themselves if they didn't care? — synthesis

Trump.

Globalization is about two things and two things only, access to cheap(er) labor and new markets. If your neighbor across is having to eat cockroach stew for dinner because if it, so be it. — synthesis

:100:

There's a mouthful that's over my head. But I recognize the word trilemma from another thread, so maybe I should go do some reading and less typing. Thanks.

Globalization creates winners and also losers. The majority of people have been winners and that's why globalization has endured. — ssu

I think of all the polite debates where that phrase is inevitably trotted out (on NPR and everywhere). It's usually followed by some quick platitude about money for jobs training and whatnot; you know, for all the losers. And then it's swept under the rug while conversation moves on to the winners and the upside.

But I find it interesting the debate is occurring at all. It seems to me that an idea has to be sold to the losers (or their champions) in order for the idea to come to fruition. So, those "buyers" have some negotiating power. Rather than settling for jobs training and some other bone, they should demand a cut of the profits to be made by the winners. But they don't get it. And I suspect the reason they don't get it is because their champions get bought off. But the losers don't get bought off.

A rising tide may lift all boats, but why should I lift someone's boat in China? Humans are a resource (human resources) and they are labor and labor is subject to supply and demand and China got a shit ton of supply and it's cheap. Well, we dam sure lifted their boat all right. They are part of the majority you talk about when you say the majority have been winners. And who bore the externalized costs? What did they get for it? A cheap piece of plastic crap from Walmart? Gee, thanks.

No, the real winners are the top 1% who rake it in without paying taxes and laughing all the way to some off shore bank. Their boat that got lifted is a giant ass yacht.

I will stipulate to globalization being good when the losers get to take their boat out now and again.

If you look at the reality, the American security apparatus has kept tabs on every kind of domestic group there is that can possible adhere to violence, from right-wing militias to animal rights activists and everything in between. — ssu

And yet it happened. I suspect it happened, not because the apparatus wasn't looking, but because so many within it "stood back and stood by" while it happened. I personally remember the chatter a week in advance, and I remember the simmering months in advance. Any idiot knew it was coming. And had it been BLM, there would have been a response more akin to what we saw in the summer.

I'm sure both the events of last year and of last January have increased emphasis on domestic terrorism in many departments. — ssu

I hope so. And they need to look within their own ranks while they are at it. We will always have these folks, but they need to stay under fridge when the lights are on. Lately they've been brave and getting braver.

And of course, let's not forget that it was a vote of 81 million to 74 million, so the smartest thing isn't to call those 74 million followers that have to be kept tabs on. — ssu

Most of those 74m were smarter and stayed home. It doesn't take a whole lot to be smarter than Trump, or to have more courage.

Nothing alienates conservatives and authoritarian right-wingers more than mob attacking and killing policemen. — ssu

I refuse to cede that ground to them. I think they pick and choose which mob and which cop will get their interest or alienation.

Let's say I know with 100% certainty that I exist. Can I then prove that I know this? — Cidat

Apparently not, though I'm trying to parse a hair here.

First, I perceive a distinction in your words. There is your knowledge about X, on the one hand, and your proof of your knowing on the other hand. No one can know what is in your head, beyond what you say. You may say you know X but no one else can know you know that. As far as the "other" is concerned, you could be lying, or mislead, or, like me, you could be a beginning philosopher struggling with all kinds of existential, ontological, etc. stuff that is over your head. But really, all anyone besides you has is your word for it. That is not proof. And I can't fathom of proof that would convince me you know something.

If you know it 100% and you keep your mouth shut, you are good to go. But if you tell someone you know it, then the burden is upon you to prove it. You can't use anecdote (that which happens a trillion times is likely to happen again, which is debatable and not proof that it will). So what else are you going to come up with as a proof? You might say it is self-evident, but that is not a proof either. You might grab my hand, place it upon you, get all up in my grill and ask "I exist, right!" And yeah, to avoid you kicking my ass I'll say "Sure, you exist." But I don't know you know it. In fact, my conversing with you might constitute my stipulation to your existence. But it is not proof thereof, and it's not proof of your knowledge of it. It's simply a gentlemen's agreement that you exist. A convenience. But not a proof.

Thanks. This is my first exposure to a philosophical analysis of antinatalism.

Just as a nit-picker though, it would seem to me that a lack of self-reflection, no need to strive, etc does not necessarily equate to an animal's suffering being a lot different than ours. So the antinatalist is not yet off the hook. The suffering could remain the same. Or, who knows, maybe it's worse.

That is all assuming animals don't self reflect (what are they doing with all that idle time chewing cud?) and maybe, like the monk, their lack of striving has been arrived at by means other than being innate to their species.

I'm wet behind the ears on this one, but it is interesting to me.

I pretty much agree with all of that. I know someone who is way left, and they were against the south-east Asia trade deal that Hillary and Obama were backing. Trump trashed the deal and this person would not even throw Trump a bone. I'm "left" and could not bring myself to vote for Hillary because, well, Goldman Sachs. I wanted to read the transcripts. No Joy. (I also hate the two party system, so there's that, too). But yeah, I get what you are saying.

The establishment may not have been able to blackmail Trump but I have a strong suspicion that Putin could. And I think it was more than pee tapes. After all, Trumptettes would over look a consenting adult's peccadilloes. I would. I think it has something to do with development projects, money, and/or kids. But I have no evidence.

In the end, though, if you want to tip over the apple cart, surely you can find someone better than Trump. Bernie would have tipped it but he doesn't appeal to the testosterone sense of the Trumpettes. Couldn't the "right" find someone who actually had some convictions whereupon he could demonstrate the courage of?

It either is enjoyable or it is not. — Tom Storm

That's my view. I often have a hard time hearing what is being said in the lyrics. Sometimes when I find the lyrics to read, I'm disappointed. Sometimes I'm pleased. But either way, if I enjoy the music, that's enough for me. Also, I don't care if the person who wrote it likes it or not. And I don't care if what I take from it is what they meant. If I find meaning they did not have, that's the meaning it has for me. If I find it enjoyable, that enough for me. I think that is what art is all about.

If I were god looking down on this mess and asking myself what humans have to contribute that is worth a shit, I'd shrug and say:

"Well, there is always art. What was in the heart of the artist as the art was created? And what was in the heart of the person who appreciated it? That's all that matters. And that's really all these turds have to contribute to my legacy. Everything else I can get from a dog. Nothing against dogs, mind you. Just saying."

Essentially you are saying you want to create the suffering subject so that they can be the hero of enduring that suffering. — schopenhauer1

I'm curious if animals matter. If they do, don't they suffer? And if so, should we roll them into the mix and help them stop breeding/suffering?

How would that repair the damage? Large canopy trees take hundreds of years to grow so the ecosystem would certainly not be 'repaired' within one generation, just no longer being destroyed. — Isaac

I'm not quite sure where you got the idea that the repair needs to be complete within one generation. Just no longer being destroyed will aid in the repair.

No, I was talking about trees too. Literally. They plant themselves, have done for millennia. It's those other issues which are the problem. — Isaac

That's the point. I was not talking about those other issues. You were. I was talking simply about trees and you took that and ran with it to other non-tree damage/repair considerations.

Maybe, if we did so instantaneously, but since that's impossible without genocide, doing nothing (no inter-generational projects) in the meantime would lead to a massively impoverished environment for those 35/10k^2, which would take many hundreds more years to recover than it would if, rather than ignore it, we protect what we have whilst such a reduction in population density was slowly enacted. Walking away is not the best way to do that. — Isaac

I disagree. Doing nothing (i.e. stopping the damage) would aid in the recovery of biodiversity much faster than our active assistance in the recovery while burdened with a gradual reeducation in our population. And there need not be any genocide if we put our dicks back in our pants and left them there.

What would an "objectively good reason" be? What would the truthmaker of 'Good' be objectively? — Isaac

That's Christopher Stone's ontological problem. But as you've agreed, nature doesn't concern herself with such things. If our goal is to create a self-sustaining, habitable planet, the expert need only be left to her own devices. Our help is a hinderance if we must drag our baggage along on the project. Pack light, and don't add more mouths to feed.

Regardless. the left is doing itself no favors by introducing all kinds of ideology that is truly bizarre (critical race theory and the like). Alienating most people is a pretty ineffective method of winning the day. And It well demonstrates their ignorance on many issues and that will be their undoing (just like supporting the riots over last summer was about social justice and not wanton property and life destruction). — synthesis

True. It's the pendulum swing. The middle gets to say (quite rightly) that each extreme brought upon itself the subsequent slippery slope the extreme tied to warn about in their justification of their own haul of the pendulum to their side. I'm guilty in my stance as a push-back socialist. AOC is, simultaneously, a 1. response to the opposition's extreme, and 2. part of the slippery slope her opposition said would come. I want to grab my pitch fork and follow because I'm so sick and tired of the myths we tell ourselves. In my defense, I am not jealous and I don't want what the 1% has. I just don't like their trying to tell me they somehow earned it. Show a little humbleness, a little gratitude, a little grace.

The right is just as guilty, in recently proving your point: "Alienating most people is a pretty ineffective method of winning the day." That is why they are largely losers.

The right seems to mostly be concerned with cultural issues, although they have been pretty quiet over the past fifty years when the country has drastically changed demographically. — synthesis

And yet their hitch their wagon to a star like Trump. They keep talking Jesus and then they slap Jesus and then they get to say that's okay, because they are forgiven. Okay. :roll:

Socialism (for me) is bad news in all kinds of ways. I go for whomever supports the most freedom and the push for personal responsibility. — synthesis

It's those last two words that are the rub. I've got a whole rant about that, but lunch is on. LOL!

Really? You think we could repair the damage we've done to an ecosystem like the rainforest in less than one generation? — Isaac

If we plant the trees and get out of the way (i.e. don't cut the down again because our numbers demand the resource) then yes. No doubt.

I don't think you've quite grasped the nature of habitat restoration. Sowing (or planting) is really very low down on the list of jobs that would help. Land needs to be legally protected, markets for unsustainable resource extraction overturned, illegal activity prevented, pollution reduced, climate change reversed... — Isaac

Two points: Here is where we've got our disconnect. You were thinking of trees metaphorically, as a representation of all our damage/repair. I was talking about trees. Secondly, even applying the tree example to all restoration of other damage (burial of toxic waste, etc.) my proposal stands if we bring our population back to a sustainable level (I suggested, above, 35 people per 10k square miles) then the repair would take care of itself. You don't need to legally protect anything if it's protection is part of the ethic. Laws are only needed to reign in the wayward children who externalize their costs. Markets go away when there is no demand. Illegal activity is absorbed (like the wolf pack that over kills the pray base). And climate change: That brings us back to the trees and our getting out of the way (i.e. stop pumping shit in the air).

I can't think why, homo sapiens has managed to have minimal impact for the first few hundred thousand years of our existence. I don't see anything inevitable about our current destructive spree. — Isaac

I think original sin was domestication of species. Maybe agriculture, but that is neither here nor there. I'd say the burden is upon you and your next generation to show the continuation of the current spree is not inevitable. If we don't correct, we will be corrected.

Agreed. But the OP isn't suggesting we should have fewer children, it's suggesting there's no good reason to have them at all. — Isaac

There isn't a good reason, at least as far as nature is concerned. The only reason is our own subjective reason, and that has yet to be proven as an objectively good reason. I have some thoughts about what we do contribute, and what our animal peers might think of us, but that is beyond the scope of this thread.

and it has mostly been legal, — synthesis

It has been legal because those with the gold make the rules.

false narrative that capitalism is at fault when it was (instead) the political corruption. — synthesis

Political corruption: see response above.

the dystopian fantasies of the left, — synthesis

I thought they were the dystopian fantasies of the right? I don't see the left prepping, stocking up, arming up, training for the melt down.

All this total bullshit from both political extremes is going away once the Elite figure it's time to cleanup their mess and get back to a system that actually works for the majority, one based on relative fairness, freedom and merit. — synthesis

That sounds good, except your statement that it is the Elite that must take these steps confirms my first two contentions. Yes, it would be nice if the Elite, sui sponte, reinserted the "enlightened" back into "enlightened self-interest." But they aren't famous for doing so. Sometimes we have to pull out lady razor and bring them to heal.

I agree that capitalism is not at fault. Rather, it is those who self-identify as capitalist who, through the making of rules and corrupting or politics, actually socialize all their costs while internalizing all their profits. And they do this while benefiting directly from society.

People like Elizabeth Warren are capitalists, and they understand this. While AOC and Bernie are an understandable, natural human reaction to the failure of these self-identified capitalist to actually be capitalists. In fact, I have become what I call a "Push-Back Socialist." That is a true capitalist who's sick and tired of the self-identified capitalists running around thinking they defied the laws of physics and pulled themselves up by their own boot-straps, that they "made this" on their own, that they are risk-taking, swashbuckling captains of daring do, all whilst hiding behind the skirts of Big Government (i.e. the corporate veil).

The first step on the road to recovery for these delusional assholes is for them to at least refrain from whining about being taxed to pay a small fraction of the costs they externalize onto the backs of everyone else.

Where we, society, agree that it is better for the whole to let the few do X, because we all benefit from it, we, as society can also agree that if we let the few do X in their own self-interest, then we can tax a portion of their profits to help allay the costs. But trickle down is not part of the "better for the whole" that was contemplated. It's fun to watch the beautiful, wild stallion storm free across the plains, but when he comes down and rampages through the crops planted and tended by people and the work-horses that pull the plow, then he's gonna get shot. And eaten. We will take care of the plow horse, and feed him well. Better even than the dog who must scrounge for scraps around the table. But that doesn't mean the work horse runs the show. If he gets too uppity, he can join the wild stallion and get shot. Maybe go to Somalia or some place that lacks all that big government shit.

Finally, on that point about financial regulation: It has been my experience in life that every single policy, regulation and law came about in response to the failure of someone to mind their manners. It doesn't happen in a vacuum. I'll not leave the self-interested capitalist unregulated in the exercise of privilege (as distinguished from right) any more than I would leave a pack of adolescents and teens alone, unsupervised in a mall. That there is dystopia.

More thoughts:

I think Logic determined that it would be illogical for Logic to place the burden of proof upon the student. I think Logic arrived at this conclusion thus:

Where A = “Because I said so” and B = “the burden is upon you to prove I am wrong” then A = B. Since Logic has already said that A cannot = B, then one of the two must give. Logic decided that B must give, and therefor Logic (never in doubt about itself), assumed the burden of proving that “Because I said so” is correct. Logic now sits in a dark corner, wringing its illogical little hands, and sweating in consternation. The crowds gather ‘round their King in defense and attack any who would deny that A = B.

To put Logic in a better light, I think Logic assumed the burden because Logic is a child of Philosophy. Philosophy, as a lover of wisdom, is a fan of the question. While the student will have questions, so too will the "teacher." The true teacher does not ask the question rhetorically, but in a sincere desire to know what the student thinks, all in a search for truth. If the burden of proof is placed upon those who ask, then the love of wisdom, Philosophy, Logic, and the asking stop. Where the student asks why does X = X and the teacher says "The burden is upon you to figure that out" then the only logical response of the student would be this: "If the burden is upon me, and you've got nothing to contribute, then I'll no longer ask you. Sorry to have wasted your precious time."

Socrates, overseeing this exchange says "Jailer, get me that poison!"

It will definately take more than one generation. — Isaac

No, it will not, not for trees.

The point is that if, for whatever reason, we're needed to do the replanting, we'll also be needed to do the tending. — Isaac

That does not follow.

You can't invoke a self-sustaining nature to do the tending, but assume it incapable of doing the seed sowing. — Isaac

I did not assume nature was incapable of doing the sewing. Quite the opposite. If we'd simply do nothing except get out of the way, nature will both resew and tend itself. But if we want to do a favor for succeeding generations of people, then, rather than sewing the succeeding generations of people we could sew succeeding generations of trees in the areas that we've destroyed and then get out of the way.

Repairing the damage we've done to the environment is exactly the sort of project I was referring to. It will definately take more than one generation. — Isaac

Have you ever heard the old saying "Stop helping!" It is usually followed by "If you want to help, . . ."

Anyway, while this has all been fun, I think you and I are missing each other, or you are conflating my position with someone else. My position is this: While extinction of homo sapiens might be an attractive option for nature, I've got no truck with simply bringing our population back to a more sustainable level. That population will be way more than enough to tend, and even more effective in doing so, if it isn't saddled with the teaming hoards.

Benevolent motivation can pre-suppose the person is not aware of the down sides we are all waiving for them too see. But likewise, is it not possible that they see an upside we don't see, or are we just more woke about how bad shit is? I mean, I see them waiving their flags all over the place, and half the time I roll my eyes. I perceive a bunch of touchy-feely shit that seems like a Kool aid they are selling themselves, or some after-the-fact justification for why they pretend to be happy. But who am I to say what is in their heart? Maybe life is a bowl of cherries and I'm just aberrant stick in the mud.

Then there's the ontological problem, where we are all but playthings made of straw. C. Stone.

In the end, another person is taking up space that I think could better be used by nothing. It is a swing at my face where my nose begins. But we all enter into evil agreements which inure to our long term detriment, even if that is only making excuses for each other. "I won't interfere with your desire to do X if you don't interfere with my desire to do Y. Oh, and we can tell each other we do it all for the children, while we actually buy another muscle truck, jet ski and snow machine for ourselves."

I can't speak for the scientists, but I wonder if maybe some of them feel an urgency, combined with a cynical but often justified perception of most people being stupid. As one possible example of many, I will refer to Dr. Fauci and an oft cited, alleged inconsistency. (I say "alleged" because I do not know the facts.)

Anyway, apparently, early on he was poo-pooing the mask, only to later become a great champion of it. This, the conservative, "hoax" crowd will point to as proof the whole Covid thing is BS. I, however, assume that Fauci was simply looking around and seeing the moronic run on butt-wipe and thinking "Gee, if these knuckle-draggers are going to scoop up all the toilet paper, maybe they'll snag all those N-95s in Home Depot and True Value, when they should better go to Doctors and Nurses. I could tell the truth, and explain it to the public, but they have already demonstrated their inconsiderate, selfish and stupid nature, so maybe it would be more effective for me to down-play the idea that masks will do them any good."

Of course, if true, it came back to haunt him. One should always err on the side brutal honesty when dealing with Americans (or maybe anyone?).

When this is combined with the very nature of the scientific profession, constant changes, and fluctuations, it may be why the "word from on high" keeps changing, and is therefor unsettling for people who need consistency and stability to feel safe. Most folks are not comfortable with uncertainty. I personally have always taken it as a challenge to not be like people. So, while the conservative likes to think he's a rebel, a renegade, an independent thinker, who finally has an opportunity to "defy the man", I roll the other way.

Science may be all over the place, but if you wait to get a consensus, security, safety, then you may get none of that. Roll the dice.

Let's see how completely it "redefines the game"... — ssu

Regarding Trump's new venue, if you are dishonorable, if you are a coward, if you are a liar, if you are a petulant, whiny little bitch, then you might find yourself relegated to obscure, isolated little echo chambers full of confirmation bias, compounding stupidity based on spin. If there are enough people who like what you do, willing to sell their souls to get it, notwithstanding your shortcomings, then you will thrive in isolation. But it will be in isolation nonetheless. We just need to make sure law enforcement is keeping tabs on his followers, just in case someone with more courage and less brains than Trump decides to attack the Union.

It is incumbent upon the 1% to utilize their superior intellect in the strategizing for inevitable collapse. A critical part and parcel of this will be the buying of much shit paper.

Donald Jr or anybody of Trump's family has his or her chance if daddy isn't around anymore. — ssu

I agree. Who could be the heir apparent? Who has Trump's faith in the brand? He is the brand, and he rose to that position because of a narcissism that has been refined down to a level so pure that it has rarely (if ever) been seen in the annals of man. This is not hyperbole. Don Jr. and the daughter don't have it. Neither does Cruz or any other idiot. The new Republican leader will have to forge his/her own identity. You just can't copy that shit. The man was a one off.

Most thinking General Officers were too conservative to hitch their wagon to that star, and conservatives aren't all stupid.

Some of the scary shit it is in China. There's a name for it, but I don't recall. But when you play ball, you get consideration. When you don't play ball, things don't go well. So, facial rec will pic you up at the cross-walk. If you wait until the light clears you to go, you are a good little sheep and your internet will be faster and your flight to Shanghai or wherever will be authorized with less hiccups. But if you jay walk, or go before the light says you can go, then your internet slows down, or you're the last to board the plane, etc. No jail, no beatings. Just a better life. F that. That's government social engineering. Compare with cancel culture; that's freedom of choice.

Either way, though, we live at the mercy of the Plutocracy and the reason they don't F with us more has nothing to do with their empathy. It's just we are not that important to them, individually. The guy in Back-Water, U.S.A. who thinks the Deep State is after him has an inflated opinion of his import.

Remember all the dystopian novels and movies? We are the people who go about their daily lives. We are not the underground righteous rebels fighting the good fight. We might support them them morally, but to actually risk anything, like our T.V. and our internet? Hell no.

That's not only me with my own mind, that's me with this computer I'm using and the car I drive. I do hope there are people out there who are on top of it. And if so, I bet they have written the book you are looking for. But it's way out of my wheelhouse. I might be interested in giving it a look if you find something written for a lay person.

I agree that many don't have an understanding. But I think many do, and with mercenary intent.

I used to not want my medical information shared, not because I was afraid of what those who don't understand what they had might do with it, but, rather, I was worried about what those who knew what they had would do with it: i.e. Deny coverage due to pre-existing conditions.

Once Obama Care came along, and I could not be denied based upon preexisting conditions, I wanted a data base created on my carcass so that every time I pulled in for a tune up, or to whine about this or that, the Dr. could pull up my history and see all that shit in one spot. Treatment would get better. (Not to mention, I wouldn't have to fill out six forms asking for the same shit every time I went in.)

But yeah, people who don't know what they have are dangerous. But those who do know what they have can be even worse.

I'd like to add another thought, regarding the trajectory of the world making it not worth bringing a kid on board. I think of the shifting environmental base line: I am absolutely sick about the loss of places I used to go. But I remember, those who came before used to hunt where I live. I would imagine they were sad to see their dark and bloody hunting ground get strip mined, clear cut, dammed, overgrazed, paved, sub-divided and developed (even if they benefited from it). And those before them. Maybe the first guy across the Bering Straight looked back and saw a small band of assholes coming and said "There goes the neighborhood." The next generation too, finds their little postage stamp of land at a youthful, idealist age, and thinks "This is good." When they get old, they will whine too.

So, we keep cutting the pie until such point that the last slice is thinner than the blade we propose to cut it with, and somebody is still happy with the piece they got. They don't know any better. And if it every becomes not worth it to go out, there's always VR.

We all know better when it comes to what we are doing, but we don't know better than what we have.

I see. I can't help. Best to you.

It seems that it may give people, with so little understanding of sensitive information, the potential for abuse of power. — Jack Cummins

:100: Not to mention those who have a huge understanding of sensitive information.

To me, a conniver is someone that has learned to survive in this world but does it in ways that are not moral, or nice, to others. — Don Wade

Sounds like Mitch McConnel to me. Others would say Hillary.

I may not be understanding what your saying, but there are books on logic, the fallacies, *how* to think, as opposed to *what* to think. Is that what you are getting at? I read Irving M. Copi's Introduction to Logic back in Community College forty years ago. I'm sure there is stuff like that around.

When it comes to dystopia, The Q in me had me thinking the whole damn thing was a ruse put in place for this end game of control. After all, I don't personally know anyone who's been sick or died. But I can do the rules standing on my head (Social distancing? Cake. Mask? A piece of cloth, so what? Wash my hands? I take a shower once a year whether I need it or not) so it never really bothered me. I was more worried about what you are worried about.

But alas, long before Covid came along, I was using England, and your biometrics, and a camera up every ass, and a lack of guns, as an example of a barn door that had been left open too long. To mix metaphors, how are you people going to put that genie back in the bottle? It's already way too late for us here in the U.S. so what hope could there be for you guys?

It reminds me of a piece I read a few months ago. The upshot was this: In the not too distant future we are all going to have to pick sides: Either we are with the Plutocracy, or the Cartels'. Both the Plutocracy and the Cartels would have a vested interest in keeping government alive (on life support) so the "people" would have a punching bag every time they felt the pain from this system. It would be government's fault. Meanwhile, the get fleeced by the owners. Who do you want to be your owner? And by the way, the Plutocracy and the Cartels would have a gentlemen's truce, with government serving as the wall between them.

In the end, though, I guess when you sign up for civilization, and forfeit your ability to shoot Nazis, the best you have left is to kick them in the nuts before they push you on the train. And that will just get you a butt stroke from a rifle for your troubles. You're still getting on the train.

I had come across one of those (often inciteful and correct) touchy-feely posts on my wife's FB page the other day. It was saying some up-lifting thing about not letting other's opinions about you affect you. You know what I'm talking about. So I start to thinking; Who epitomizes the internalization of that wisdom? Besides some yogi on mountain somewhere? I thought, you know those master politicians have skin so thick that it's nigh on to impossible to hurt their feelings. You can say the nastiest shit in the world about those folks and they shrug it off like water off a duck. Do you think Hillary or Mitch or Ted Cruz ever go home at night and wring their greasy little hands over, or cry about anything anyone said about them? Hell no. They might worry about how it would affect the polling, or $$$, but that's about it.

So, does that make them someone to look up to, like the yogi on the mountain top? Hell no!. Should we applaud, or re-elect? Applaud, no! Re-elect, maybe. It depends on whether they are our politician or the other guy's politician.

I'm more interested in how they got that way. I remember them in training, back in elementary school. They didn't do much *with* their peers. They might have been doing something *for* their peers. But it always seemed they thought their peer group were the faculty or administration, not the other kids. They may have seemed like teacher's pets to the other kids, but they were playing the teachers too (and the teachers knew it). And their alleged desire to do something for others never seemed altruistic. It seemed calculated.

They may or may not have been bullied; they may or may not have been excellent students. They may or may have not been part of a clique. But they damn sure didn't seem to care one whit about what others thought of them. They had their eye on the ball, and a higher prize, down the road; sometimes way down the road. They were long term, strategic thinkers. I struggled for a long time trying to come up with a word that encapsulated them. The closest I could come was "Conniver."

Their really hard to beat.

Well then why do we need to plant them? They do that themselves too you know. — Isaac

They will if we get the F out of their way. But since we've trashed X% of the worlds lungs, we could replant with the 7 billion parasites currently killing the host. Then, when we've scaled back to a sustainable level, like 35 people per 10k square miles of temperate zone, they'll have some descent shade and air.

Who, then, will tend the trees? — Isaac

The trees will tend themselves.

To continue improving the fate of those who remain after your death through projects that take longer than one generation to complete. — Isaac

Better to plant trees than to add more people. “A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they know they shall never sit." Old Greek Proverb.