"If you are really going to guard your borders so that NO ONE gets in or out, you have to do it the way the Soviets did it in parts of Europe: double fences, no-man zones in between, mines, guard towers, armed guards, spot lights, (and more up-to-date), drones, robots, etc. Very expensive." You've forgotten about planes again and people who overstay on legal visas. We have gotten to the point where our society is moving closer towards a form of globalism and every country relies on immigration to varying levels, even illegal immigrants. Do you know how many farms in the USA are struggling because of the increased targeting of illegal immigrants? MOST OF THEM! So the bread basket may very well run dry long before climate change has the chance to destroy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wk6rswxQro No type of increased barrier will work to stop immigration. If parents have to make a choice between their child definitely dying in their home country between maybe being caught crossing a border illegally then I'd say those parents are making the right choice in regards to the interests of their child. A caught illegal immigrant can be turned away without abusing them or their children and their children are still blameless.

Besides we aren't arguing about the pros and cons of immigration policies we are talking about this current administrations policies which are clear human rights violations and when things like that are going in it is neither the time nor place to talk about whether or not an anti-immigration stance is right.

"Global warming is an unmitigated tragedy. The "survival of the fittest" won't be based on genetics, it will be based on geography. Various places on earth will be more severely affected and some places less so, and that includes the first world." So whomever has the best cards geographically/financially is going to get to decide the fate of the rest of humanity? Do you believe they are under no obligation to provide safe haven for our species during what is to come? Would the war trying to keep the rest of the world out of these potential safe zones when they get desperate and when their children are burning/starving on their doorstep bring about the absolute destruction of the human race? Trying to keep everyone out might be a very demanding and altogether unethical task if it will require the mass slaughter of all who try to gain entry. Survival of the fittest won't be based on geography either if this stance is taken, it will revert back to who can take it by force and I know I personally will not be on the side that is going to make the mistake of saying "no" to everyone else when people start to panic.

S There will soon be 8 billion people. Let's say 6 billion of them will need -- not a safe haven, but permanent relocation -- to what great location do you propose to move 6 billion people? France? North Dakota? The new arctic circle Shangrl Las? Tibet? It isn't that there is not enough land. There is space enough. What there will not be enough of on any continent is food, fresh water, raw material (for housing, for example), and energy for massive increases in heating and cooling. (The north will still get cold in the winter.)

Why will moving 6 billion people into Canada and Siberia not work??

Because, as the zone of tolerable temperature moves north (in the Northern Hemisphere), the thawing and warming soils in much of Canada and Siberia will be wholly unsuitable for agriculture. That soil has been in a deep freeze for eons and has not turned into even poor soil, and it takes thousands of years for good soil to form. Also, as "the zone" moves north, more and more areas south of the zone (prime agricultural land now) will become unsuitable for intensive, extensive agriculture.

Global warming is a long term problem. The turn-around in climate may not occur for the proverbial ten thousand years, or as far as our species is concerned, ever.

What I am saying is this: The unfolding crisis will be implacable. It will be like the Black Plague was for medieval people: Equal opportunity doom.

So whomever has the best cards geographically/financially is going to get to decide the fate of the rest of humanity? — Mark Dennis

That is the way contingency works in this world. The fleas on the infected rats didn't have any preferential options for one group or another. Those that were bitten by the plague-carrying fleas tended to get sick and die. Some people were able to survive the infection. A few were able to actually resist the infection. The descendants of those lucky people were lucky again several hundred years later when it turned out that that the same gene that resisted the plague also resisted HIV. Most people in the world are susceptible to HIV, regardless of their race, religious affiliation, portfolio, or degree of virtue.

Anyway, not to get too far afield, Yes: Whoever has the best cards geographically and/or financially MAY get to decIde the fate of the rest of humanity. To what degree depends on two things: how organized the rest of humanity is, and how determined those with the best cards are. People with great cards sometimes lose.

A highly organized association of 6 billion people determined not to do the slow burn in India, Africa, Indochina, the Middle East, and much of the Western Hemisphere can probably dictate who will go where. The likelihood of 6 billion people being well enough organized to decide ANYTHING seems quite remote. Not only must they decide, they have to figure out how. Don't expect a swift or effective solution.

The 2 billion people retreating to the cooler, not very fertile northern reaches of Canada, Alaska, Europe, and Siberia will not be home free. They will have plenty of problems providing for themselves, let alone 6 billion more.

The upshot? A major die off, and human beings will not have to organize it. We are already on the outskirts of the planet's carrying capacity for our species, and Mother Nature has proven and reliable methods of reducing populations.

Mother's methods are so hard.
By the luck of the dealers card
Mother Nature selects the dead
from White, Yellow, Black, and Red

Mother has no favorites.

“This has become the party of Trump and defending him at all costs. It’s sad the Republican party used to be for families and conservative values; that’s something you could disagree with but still discuss and come to an agreement. What they’re doing now has nothing to do with policy and is about empowering one section of society.” — David Smith, The Guardian

Trump has reduced joblessness. Everywhere. Quickly. In the scheme of things, that’s the pivotal measure of a modern president. I applaud his efforts.

“Mother's methods are so hard.
By the luck of the dealers card
Mother Nature selects the dead
from White, Yellow, Black, and Red

Mother has no favorites.” This is poignant as fuck, yours or someone else’s? I’d search but I like to get information the old fashioned way, by asking someone who knows. Not all the time but if I have the opportunity. I accept that what you have laid out seems like one of the outcomes with the highest probability of being what actually happens.

I’m going to start a new thread tomorrow on climate change and I’d very much like you to contribute. However, it will also be a documentary discussion of two I have in mind. I’d be very interested to see how they might alter your outlook somewhat.

I think one of the best ways to go about futurology (For that is what we will also be entering into and what you have just done with your prediction.) is to determine a number of logically probable potential outcomes in order to cover as many bases as possible and to determine how much Hope there may or may not be depending on where you are. I have been thinking about this for awhile and I think if we can really get to the meat of the matter, we can at least figure out the courses of action individuals should take when they become more cognisant of the threat and the panic starts to set in. We could maybe both write essays and cite each other in the very least.

Would any of this be of interest to you?

Mother's methods are so hard.
By the luck of the dealers card
Mother Nature selects the dead
from White, Yellow, Black, and Red — Mark Dennis

I started with the Sunday school ditty, "Jesus loves the little children..." and tried to subvert the loving message. "All the children of the world. Red and yellow, black and white; they are precious in His sight. Jesus loves the little Children of the world."

There is an environmentalist saying that "Mother Nature always bats last." In other words, nature, like it or not, has the last say. Then there was your "So whomever has the best cards" and the idea fell into place. As a quatrain, I'd rate it as mediocre. The rhythm of iambic tetrameter doesn't work very well.

But... it's OK. "Poignant as fuck" is perfectly acceptable praise. It's about as good as I get.

I think starting a new thread on global warming or climate change or some similar term would be interesting. It's one of my favorite axes to grind. Of course it won't be the first. You can do a search (search box at the top of TPF page) to get some idea of previous discussions.

I'm pretty pessimistic about our collective future; how fast the plot will unfold, I don't know. What I have read suggests that time is running out for effective action to have time to work, and beside that, not much effective action is actually happening. Consciousness of the crisis is higher than it used to be; good results for installation of wind and solar is being achieved here and there. Etc.

The bad news for us is that the degree of change we need to achieve, if achieved, will be shocking; very difficult to adjust to; very consequential. It means, basically, backing up to before the Industrial revolution. Another problem that looms up, along with global warming or climate change, is the depletion of affordable petroleum supplies. We've passed "peak oil" so are on the downside of the production curve. The good news is the curve is quite long, so we won't run out next week. But oil will become harder to get in the long run (with less than a century of diminishing economically obtainable oil left).

The end of oil, even if there were no global warming, will be a catastrophic change event, and is why we end up going back to before the industrial revolution. We can't lower CO2 and methane, and operate a heavy industrial society without oil. Our whole industrial existence has been predicated on cheap petroleum and coal. Oil is part of just about everything.

I've been influenced by John Michael Greer and James Howard Kunstler (they think alike and both use three names), but what they say squares pretty will with other authorities on energy, environment, oil, climate, and so forth.

As Kunstler says, we've been relying on magical thinking to ease our justifiable worries about the future.

I think starting a new thread on global warming or climate change or some similar term would be interesting. — Bitter Crank

It's interesting to ponder what drives some people to be so aggressive about an issue they don't really know much about.

Is it like racism where anger becomes displaced?

Applauding the efforts of a racist.

But why can't we applaud someone for the important things while ignoring everything else? I mean we all applaud Hitler for reducing joblessness, don't we? ... Don't we?

:lol:

So, Trump achieved more jobs by borrowing money during a boom created by his predecessor and handing all the loot to corporations and the rich. His grand economic plan is to borrow when you already have money, splurge it to make stupid people happy then have no money when you need it and blame it on poor people scrounging welfare so you can take what little they have from them to give to rich people during the next boom. Of course, this is totally unsustainable, but who cares? A country can just go bankrupt and then start again, right? ... Right?

Think of it as a test of the American gov't system. If it breaks down, then Trump revealed an underlying flaw.

Trump and the Trump machine are just representatives of human variation.

“Applauding the efforts of a racist.”

Double yawn.

“...during a boom created by his predecessor...”

The average unemployment rate under Obama for minorities, especially women, was %18 at its lowest (best) level. During the bulk of his reign, it averaged in the 20s. No “boon” existed. Regrets.

Trump has reduced joblessness. — Reshuffle

Trump inherited a growing economy. And yet, in typical fashion, he took credit even before he was sworn in.

The unemployment numbers do not tell the whole story. First because there is a significant number of people who have given up looking for work. Many jobs are part-time. Many are low paying requiring someone to work two, three, or four jobs. Many live paycheck to paycheck without sufficient funds to cover an emergency.

Meanwhile the national debt is at a record high and rising, while at the same time Trump has given a tax break to the wealthy. His tariffs, threatened tariffs, and trade wars disproportionately burden the middle class, leave businesses troubled and uncertain, and have an adverse affect on the global economy.

Think of it as a test of the American gov't system. If it breaks down, then Trump revealed an underlying flaw. — frank

Whether these things are seen as underlying flaws or opportunities to be exploited depends on where you stand on the role of government.

Trump has made clear his intent to dismantle the administrative state. This is a large part of his appeal for some. He cannot simply do away with government agencies so instead he renders them ineffectual by putting people in charge of them who are fundamentally opposed to what these agencies were designed to do. It is not an underlying flaw but deliberate action intended to serve the interests of the plutocrats who, under the banner of freedom, benefit from deregulation.

The average unemployment rate under Obama for minorities, especially women, was %18 at its lowest (best) level. During the bulk of his reign, it averaged in the 20s. No “boon” existed. Regrets. — Reshuffle

And what specifically has Trump done to improve the unemployment rate for minorities? The fact is that those rates have been falling long before Trump took office. Just another example of Trump taking credit for something he did not have anything to do with.

“It's interesting to ponder what drives some people to be so aggressive about an issue they don't really know much about.” I actually know quite a bit about it, I also know about some of the innovative solutions posited toward the problem.

I don’t know what drives others to anger about the issue, speaking personally though to my own I’m generally angry when I’m on this thread, the amount of knowledge I have on it is making me panic, I’m panicking because I’m a parent, lack of awareness of said solutions aggravates me and I have a bias toward defeatism. However I am employing humes ethics of emotion in this as I’m following cohens observation that language isn’t just the written word as academics and bookish people tend to fall prey to thinking. It is our body language, intonation and sometimes our emotions. There is a interesting story that goes along with this: A brash arrogant philosophy student who is enamoured with a feeling of pride for an extremely complex, long and creative essay. He goes to read it to his professor, five minutes in and the professor is asleep. The student is annoyed but carries on. He finishes and makes to leave just as the professor wakes up. The student says “I’m sorry I didn’t get to hear your criticisms” to which the professor replies “Is falling asleep not a criticism?”.

Venting my anger on here is constructive to me though and I can reread my own comments when I’m calmer as part of some self reflection.

Will be good to have you in the global warming discussion though. Will be posting it before the end of the week.

Whether these things are seen as underlying flaws or opportunities to be exploited depends on where you stand on the role of government. — Fooloso4

Why do you say it's about role? I was talking about endurance.

Trump has made clear his intent to dismantle the administrative state. — Fooloso4

He wanted to turn back the clock. He thinks the US of the 60s and 70s can be revived. His animosity toward China comes from his sense that China is what the US used to be.

One of the reasons American heavy industry declined was that administrative bodies were equipped with the power to regulate and punish a wide range of employers. Trump thinks: China doesn't punish its industries that way. We should stop.

Whatever you think of him, there is an actual point of view in there. Obama talked about it.

It's true that he may have actually shifted the direction of the American domestic policy. We'll see.

Venting my anger on here is constructive to me though and I can reread my own comments when I’m calmer as part of some self reflection. — Mark Dennis

:up:

“The unemployment numbers do not tell the whole story.”

Of course not. Few accomplishments arrive sans the shoulders and genius of others before them. I’m not debating Trump’s road-to-unemployment successes. His success isn’t unilateral, to be sure, but that hardly forecloses on its merit.

“And what specifically has Trump done to improve the unemployment rate for minorities?”

He’s induced businesses to hire them at a significant rate. The instruments behind the inducement range from de-regulation to tax breaks to favorable trade deals.

Why do you say it's about role? I was talking about endurance. — frank

The two are related. Those who think that minimal government is optimal then if much of the government as it stands today no longer endured, so much the better because all that should endure is the minimum of government. Rather than seeing this as the end of government they see it as a correction, a return what the government should be. MAGA.

He wanted to turn back the clock. He thinks the US of the 60s and 70s can be revived. — frank

I think he wants to turn back the clock even further. There are many conservatives who want to return to a time before Roosevelt's New Deal. They see the only legitimate role of government to be to protect the rights of the individual understood in the narrow sense of non-interference.

Whatever you think of him, there is an actual point of view in there. — frank

The first question is whether there should be any regulation. If the answer is yes, then how much? The solution to regulatory overreach, in my opinion, is not to do away with regulation and regulatory agencies. Which is preferable - allowing coal companies to pollute the streams that are a source of drinking water, causing serious illness and death, or to protect the environment and the people who rely on it? Protect the jobs or the people? I don't think it is quite so simple though. For one, Trump's pro-coal stance benefits the owners of the coal companies in a way that is greatly disproportionate to the relatively few who benefit from having a coal job. Second, jobs and regulation need not be in opposition. There is, for example, far more job opportunity in solar power than coal.

The average unemployment rate under Obama for minorities, especially women, was %18 at its lowest (best) level. During the bulk of his reign, it averaged in the 20s. No “boon” existed. Regrets. — Reshuffle

According to this:

• The economy gained a net 11.6 million jobs. The unemployment rate dropped to below the historical norm.
• Average weekly earnings for all workers were up 4.0 percent after inflation. The gain was 3.7 percent for just production and nonsupervisory employees.
• After-tax corporate profits also set records, as did stock prices. The S&P 500 index rose 166 percent.
• The number of people lacking health insurance dropped by 15 million. Premiums rose, but more slowly than before.
• The federal debt owed to the public rose 128 percent. Deficits were rising as Obama departed.
• Home prices rose 20 percent. But the home ownership rate hit the lowest point in half a century.
• Illegal immigration declined: The Border Patrol caught 35 percent fewer people trying to get into the U.S. from Mexico.
• Wind and solar power increased 369 percent. Coal production declined 38 percent. Carbon emissions from burning fossil fuel dropped 11 percent.
• Production of handguns rose 192 percent, to a record level.
• The murder rate dropped to the lowest on record in 2014, then rose and finished at the same rate as when Obama took office.

Here you can see the unemployment rate for minorities (and whites). It was in a steep rise for a year (for all groups) before he became President which continued for a year and then dropped sharply. Trump's unemployment rate is following the trend much like the rise in stock prices. It's really misleading to tout this as some triumph. It's a fact of life that barring significant upheavals like depressions, recessions, and dot-com bubbles, the economy improves over time.

What you should be looking at is policies implemented by Presidents that change their contemporary trajectory, e.g. Obama inheriting the fallout of a global financial crisis and managing to turn it around.

His success isn’t unilateral, to be sure, but that hardly forecloses on its merit. — Reshuffle

Precisely where is his success? What has he done?

“And what specifically has Trump done to improve the unemployment rate for minorities?”

He’s induced businesses to hire them at a significant rate. The instruments behind the inducement range from de-regulation to tax breaks to favorable trade deals. — Reshuffle

In a growing economy there is a growing need for employees (or at least that is still the case for now). That benefits all who seek employment. He has done nothing specifically targeted to help minorities.

The consequences of deregulation may in the long run disproportionately harm the poor, but the effects are seen long term. There is little or no evidence that his tax break did anything to increase employment.

As far as trade deals, he has created an environment of global uncertainty.

The fundamental problem here is that the short term picture of the economy, whether looked at in terms of what has happened since Trump took office or in terms of the long term consequences of what is happening now, can never give us the whole picture. One thing seems certain - as long as the economy does well Trump will take credit and if it doesn't he will blame someone or everyone else.

The two are related. Those who think that minimal government is optimal then if much of the government as it stands today no longer endured, so much the better because all that should endure is the minimum of government. Rather than seeing this as the end of government they see it as a correction, a return what the government should be. MAGA. — Fooloso4

Trump isn't an anarchist, though. The core system is still in place. Regulatory bodies can be restarted downstream.

I think he wants to turn back the clock even further. There are many conservatives who want to return to a time before Roosevelt's New Deal. They see the only legitimate role of government to be to protect the rights of the individual understood in the narrow sense of non-interference. — Fooloso4

I agree, although it wouldn't surprise me if Trump doesn't know who FDR is. He probably doesn't.

The first question is whether there should be any regulation. If the answer is yes, then how much? The solution to regulatory overreach, in my opinion, is not to do away with regulation and regulatory agencies. Which is preferable - allowing coal companies to pollute the streams that are a source of drinking water, causing serious illness and death, or to protect the environment and the people who rely on it? Protect the jobs or the people? I don't think it is quite so simple though. For one, Trump's pro-coal stance benefits the owners of the coal companies in a way that is greatly disproportionate to the relatively few who benefit from having a coal job. Second, jobs and regulation need not be in opposition. There is, for example, far more job opportunity in solar power than coal. — Fooloso4

All true, and all well said. I think the regulatory bodies we have now came from a liberal wave in the 1970s. We might have to wait for another one to restore them.

The core system is still in place. — frank

The question is, what is the core system? If he or others had their way and dismantled the administrative state what would be left? Could the government still function?

I think the regulatory bodies we have now came from a liberal wave in the 1970s. — frank

It was the leftist liberal Richard Nixon who signed the EPA into law.

There was a short lived TV series on Amazon "Alpha House" created by Garry Trudeau. In one episode there is a Republican retreat. The entertainment includes an impersonator doing Reagan. Everything he says are things the Reagan actually said. They are outraged. Their conservative hero and spiritual father could not have said such things.

The question is, what is the core system? If he or others had their way and dismantled the administrative state what would be left? Could the government still function? — Fooloso4

Constitution. Three branches. The usual. It's ok if some people are anarchists. We aren't going to lock them up and harvest their organs for transplants as China is apparently still doing after declaring that they'd stopped. Need a kidney?

I agree with most everything you say, BTW. I'm just looking downstream.

Constitution. — frank

I'd like to make two points on this. First with regard to Article V of the Constitution which allows for both an amendment process and perhaps more importantly a provision for a constitutional convention:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

The reason why this is so important is that big money interests backed by the Koch Brothers and others are pushing for a Constitutional convention under the guise of a balanced budget amendment. But they are not intent on doing this in the way that amendments have always been passed. If two thirds of the states demand it there must be a Constitutional convention. Once the convention is convened the possibility of radical change to the Constitution is possible.


The second has to do with Jefferson's view. In a letter to James Madison he writes:

The question Whether one generation of men has a right to bind another, seems never to have been started either on this or our side of the water. Yet it is a question of such consequences as not only to merit decision, but place also, among the fundamental principles of every government ...

I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, ‘that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living’: that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it ...

... no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation ...

Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.

https://jeffersonpapers.princeton.edu/selected-documents/thomas-jefferson-james-madison

The USA isn't going to last forever. 5000 years from now we'll just be remembered as a blip at the end of the British Empire.

Enjoy it while it lasts.

If someone didn't know that Trump inherented a long growing economy with decreasing unemployment probably didn't know because their head was so far up their ass.