I feel bad about being so harsh in my response. That's why I decided to stop. — T Clark

I don't take what anybody says personally. I am just here to chat with interesting folks, particularly ones that have VERY different opinions from me.

I do appreciate your consideration, though!

I'm interested in this discussion, but I'm feeling guilty. We're way off subject. Start a thread and I'll participate. You've obviously thought about this more than I have. — T Clark

Sure. That's cool! But let me see if I can get back on topic from where I was. Woke-ism! That should not come as a surprise! There was a parallel, where I sympathised with the sentiment - (were it honest) but not with the approach! But you're right, after that it diverged very quickly, and we never got back to the parallel. Oops! Until anon, over and out!

Etc. etc. I get that. I also don't have a problem with your geo heat thing. But cars didn't become what they are today overnight or without subsidy. Pointing at wind/solar/whatever for it's failure to solve overnight and on it's own nickel is not how anything anywhere ever worked, ever. I could be wrong, but I have a feeling Musk, et al, are not stupid and they like money too. If I was them, with their resources, I'd sick the best dogs in the world on the problem. Kind of like I defer to the physicists when push comes to shove because, well, they've put the time in. — James Riley

Musk worked his way up, has raised awareness and done good. I'm not knocking the guy. I am comparing my theoretical constructions to his actual achievements, and find his actual achievements wanting, and that's not a good look, but I'm generally of the view that those with the resources could solve the problem. Musk et al seem to have a corporate interest in the climate and energy question, and so do I. So, low hanging fruit perhaps, but if I had his money, I'd be drilling for magma heat energy, building turbine halls, and electrolysis plants - rather than big batteries in the desert.

Just as Amendment XXII limited the number of terms to avoid a dictator, a new amendment can rid the US of the gerontocracy to which it has been subjected.

You might wish to consider the following...

There are three ways to learn. Real learning is through direct experience. Next is learning from somebody who has direct experience. The third and least effective method is indirect learning (e.g., reading).

Reality suggests that the folks with the most direct experience are older and that is why older people are generally chosen for positions of the greatest responsibility. Younger people, OTOH, have a tendency to be complete doofuses (take AOC, for example) because they interpolate from indirect learning (which is almost always wrong).

Just as Amendment XXII limited the number of terms to avoid a dictator, a new amendment can rid the US of the gerontocracy to which it has been subjected. — gikehef947

Ha! Us gerontocrats are in charge!! It will never happen. You will need the support of 2/3 of Congress and the legislatures of 38 states, all filled with old guys like me.

Your medical journals? Right, maybe the Annals of Aromatherapy or the Missouri Journal of Wellness?

Definitely don't quit your day job!

the folks with the most direct experience are older and that is why older people are generally chosen for positions of the greatest responsibility. — synthesis

Otoh, it is a truism in mathematics and physics that if you havent produced anything groundbreaking by the time you’re 30 you never will. Pop music seems to be another arena where the most brilliant work generally seems to be done before the age of 35. I agree that politics is different, but maybe that’s a function of a mellower temperament in older age rather than more insight. Politics is precisely NOT about groundbreaking ideas but consensus building.

Ha! Us gerontocrats are in charge!! It will never happen. You will need the support of 2/3 of Congress and the legislatures of 38 states, all filled with old guys like me. — T Clark

You must admit, our generation (baby boomers) have been a complete disaster. Starting out as the philosophical idealists and ending up completely corrupt, obese, the worst parents ever, uber-materialists, with barely a morsel of dignity or a whiff of honor to be found among 75M FRAUDS.

Look at what we are handing our children and theirs...a country so beautiful, so wealthy, so full of promise, turned into a crack-addict/alcoholic passed-out in the gutter.

our generation (baby boomers) have been a complete disaster. Starting out as the philosophical idealists and ending up completely corrupt, obese, the worst parents ever, uber-materialists, with barely a morsel of dignity or a whiff of honor to be found among 75M FRAUDS. — synthesis

I’ve always found it interesting that the movers and shakers of the social revolution of the ‘60’s were not baby boomers( Jane Fonda, Allen Ginsberg, Ken Kesey, Tiom Hayden, Paul Krassner, Timothy Leary, Abbie Hoffman) Even John Lennon, Bob Dylan and Jimmu Hendrix technically weren’t baby boomers.

Otoh, it is a truism in mathematics and physics that if you havent produced anything groundbreaking by the time you’re 30 you never will. Pop music seems to be another arena where the most brilliant work generally seems to be done before the age of 35. I agree that politics is different, but maybe that’s a function of a mellower temperament in older age rather than more insight. Politics is precisely NOT about groundbreaking ideas but consensus building. — Joshs

The problem is corruption. I am 66 and the amount I know now as compared as what I knew at thirty is incalculable (both personally and professionally). I have often told younger people that the difference between 30 and 60 is much greater then the difference between 10 and 30.

That is not to say that there aren't folks out there who never learned much of anything, but if you take those who are life-long learners, the experience you gain professionally and from having a family puts you in a place that people without this experience can not even begin to grasp.

Everything of significant value in life you gain through direct experience.

I’ve always found it interesting that the movers and shakers of the social revolution of the ‘60’s were not baby boomers( Jane Fonda, Allen Ginsberg, Ken Kesey, Tiom Hayden, Paul Krassner, Timothy Leary, Abbie Hoffman) Even John Lennon, Bob Dylan and Jimmu Hendrix technically weren’t baby boomers. — Joshs

You might think that in light of what's going on in this country that there would be more than just a couple of people with enough courage to stand-up and speak the truth. An entire generation sold-out to McMansions, European luxury sedans/SUVs, and whatever else people find it necessary to rip-out off the common man. Pathetic.

I am 66 and the amount I know now as compared as what I knew at thirty is incalculable ( — synthesis

I think that’s true of my favorite pop composers. But the issue isn’t just how much more you know now that 30 years ago, it’s how much younger generations have leapfrogged over your knowledge. Frank Sinatra was undoubtedly wiser at 70 than at 25, but his way of thinking about music became irrelevant to a new generation.

Everything of significant value in life you gain through direct experience. — synthesis

Everything of significant value in my life came from sitting in a quiet room and generating ideas out of all variety of experience, both direct and indirect. All ‘direct’ means to me is a set of ideas I generate that link to what I learned from others but goes beyond it.

An entire generation sold-out to McMansions, European luxury sedans/SUVs, and whatever else people find it necessary to rip-out off the common man. — synthesis

That was the theme of ‘The Big Chill’. But the premise was kind of silly, because they were all just followers of fashion to begin with. One could argue that BLM protesters are in their own way followers of fashion.

You must admit, our generation (baby boomers) have been a complete disaster. — synthesis

I don't see it that way. I have no longing for the days when men were men and all the negroes stayed on the other side of the tracks where they belonged. I think the main thing wrong with our generation is that there are so many of us.

Any moderators looking in, my comments about negroes are intended as irony.

Look at what we are handing our children and theirs...a country so beautiful, so wealthy, so full of promise, turned into a crack-addict/alcoholic passed-out in the gutter. — synthesis

I don't see it that way either. I've never been a big fan of hell-in-a-handbasket philosophizing.

The argument not being made is that capitalism can overcome this problem. I'm not blaming Malthus. I'm pointing out he was wrong, and for obvious reasons the left are blind to the fact, while the right retreat into denial. It's not necessary to hide from the climate and ecological crisis. History suggests we can solve this. The science suggests we can solve this. You tell me, why aren't we solving this? — counterpunch

I'll blame Malthus.

His theories were have been so successful as the intelligentsia took it to heart. Doesn't matter if it hasn't been correct model of what will happen. If the correct circles love it, it's all that matters.

The point of this thread (until it was hijacked by my friend, Magma-tron :) was that the entire woke enterprise is really bad-news (which goes against my "equal amount of good and bad in everything" idea), but I simply cannot find any redeeming value in anything woke. Even the legit things they might offer are cloaked in such moronic garb that nobody could take anything they say seriously. — synthesis

I think the real issue is that the US has really serious socio-economic problems as the middle class isn't growing, and people aren't happy about the corruption both on the left and right. And things obviously are going to get far worse with the selected monetary & fiscal policy. So it's good for the elite to give room for in the end rather silly wokeness and have it divide people in new ways. When the lower classes are deeply divided and hate each other, it's better for the ruling elite. Worst thing would be that someone came and united the medium to low income Americans!

I'll blame Malthus. His theories were have been so successful as the intelligentsia took it to heart. Doesn't matter if it hasn't been correct model of what will happen. If the correct circles love it, it's all that matters. — ssu

Malthus argument is instructive, even though it's not correct. It's proven false by 200 years of technological progress that now sees more people better fed than ever. That's because people are not just consumers of a fixed quantity of resources. We apply technology to multiply resources. Understanding why Malthus is wrong focuses our attention on application of the technologies necessary to produce sufficient resources sustainably - and those technologies exist. That so, the problem is not over-population, but the application of technology. We can support large population sustainably if we apply the right technologies. We need to step up from the fossil fuels that powered the industrial revolution; not step down. We need more, and cleaner energy - to continue to produce enough resources, and to do so sustainably.

That was the theme of ‘The Big Chill’. But the premise was kind of silly, because they were all just followers of fashion to begin with. One could argue that BLM protesters are in their own way followers of fashion. — Joshs

Baby boomers just wanted to (in theory) live purer, more balanced lives, whereas BLM is a political movement (which is always a power/money grab). God only knows what the white liberal protesters are up to or what the etiology of their self-loathing is.

You must admit, our generation (baby boomers) have been a complete disaster.
— synthesis

I don't see it that way. I have no longing for the days when men were men and all the negroes stayed on the other side of the tracks where they belonged. I think the main thing wrong with our generation is that there are so many of us. — T Clark

Nobody has any longing for that aspect of history and certainly things have improved. 20% of AAs are doing pretty well now but it is up to the AA's community to fix their families, their schools, and the really negative parts of their culture. Then, the sky's the limit. AAs are great people.

Look at what we are handing our children and theirs...a country so beautiful, so wealthy, so full of promise, turned into a crack-addict/alcoholic passed-out in the gutter.
— synthesis

I don't see it that way either. I've never been a big fan of hell-in-a-handbasket philosophizing. — T Clark

Compare 1960 with today. This country has become an economic basket-case over the past 60 years (trading equity for debt), it's institutions are horribly dys-functional and corrupt, and the culture is downright dystopian.

I am glad you are happy with it, though. I am also doing quite well (personally), but that's not that difficult to accomplish if you are a hard worker and persistent.

I think the real issue is that the US has really serious socio-economic problems as the middle class isn't growing, and people aren't happy about the corruption both on the left and right. And things obviously are going to get far worse with the selected monetary & fiscal policy. So it's good for the elite to give room for in the end rather silly wokeness and have it divide people in new ways. When the lower classes are deeply divided and hate each other, it's better for the ruling elite. Worst thing would be that someone came and united the medium to low income Americans! — ssu

Hard to argue with any of that.

AAs are great people. — synthesis

At first I wasn't sure if you were being ironic. Donald Trump said "MAGA loves the black people," and "I have a great relationship with the blacks."

Compare 1960 with today. This country has become an economic basket-case over the past 60 years (trading equity for debt), it's institutions are horribly dys-functional and corrupt, and the culture is downright dystopian. — synthesis

We certainly have problems. I don't think things are as dire as you do. I'd say "we'll see," but I won't be around for that. My children will see.

Malthus argument is instructive, even though it's not correct. It's proven false by 200 years of technological progress that now sees more people better fed than ever. That's because people are not just consumers of a fixed quantity of resources. We apply technology to multiply resources. Understanding why Malthus is wrong focuses our attention on application of the technologies necessary to produce sufficient resources sustainably - and those technologies exist. That so, the problem is not over-population, but the application of technology. We can support large population sustainably if we apply the right technologies. — counterpunch

But now you are praising technology and saying that it can be an answer and that doesn't sound nice. It sounds awful. Technology. Boo!!!

No, we have to rip our toga's and sprinkle ash on ourselves, reject our hedonistic materialism and technological imperialism as the sin we indulge in thanks to our privilege. We have to show penance. Then we must chant the newest smart sounding eco-friendly mantra that doesn't go against the Malthusian ideas and still resonates in the correct circles in order to show that we stand with the correct group of people. And there you have it.

Embrace the liturgy!

At first I wasn't sure if you were being ironic. Donald Trump said "MAGA loves the black people," and "I have a great relationship with the blacks." — T Clark

What does he have to do with me?

We certainly have problems. I don't think things are as dire as you do. I'd say "we'll see," but I won't be around for that. My children will see. — T Clark

What has to happen for things to be "dire" for you? And we have been seeing for decades now.

Everything of significant value in my life came from sitting in a quiet room and generating ideas out of all variety of experience, both direct and indirect. All ‘direct’ means to me is a set of ideas I generate that link to what I learned from others but goes beyond it. — Joshs

I don't discount the value of introspection, but actual doing is the way. How do you believe your ideas of what is real can compete with what is actually real?

I think the real issue is that the US has really serious socio-economic problems as the middle class isn't growing, and people aren't happy about the corruption both on the left and right. And things obviously are going to get far worse with the selected monetary & fiscal policy. So it's good for the elite to give room for in the end rather silly wokeness and have it divide people in new ways. When the lower classes are deeply divided and hate each other, it's better for the ruling elite. Worst thing would be that someone came and united the medium to low income Americans! — ssu

What do you mean by the elite giving room for wokeness?

What has to happen for things to be "dire" for you? And we have been seeing for decades now. — synthesis

Dire? There were people who lived through World War I, the Spanish Flu, the Great Depression, World War II, Smallpox (300 million dead), Korean War, polio epidemics, Vietnam War, Cold War, Cuban Missile Crisis and other bull shit. People talk about how tough it was under certain governments, but war just sucks. I can't imagine what it would be like to be a non-combatant with war raging all around you. Our trials today are a cake walk.

But now you are praising technology and saying that it can be an answer and that doesn't sound nice. It sounds awful. Technology. Boo!!! — ssu

The technologies I refer to are those necessary to sustainability; starting with massive heat energy from magma, limitless clean electricity, carbon capture and storage, desalination and irrigation, hydrogen fuel, and recycling technologies.

No, we have to rip our toga's and sprinkle ash on ourselves, reject our hedonistic materialism and technological imperialism as the sin we indulge in thanks to our privilege. We have to show penance. Then we must chant the newest smart sounding eco-friendly mantra that doesn't go against the Malthusian ideas and still resonates in the correct circles in order to show that we stand with the correct group of people. And there you have it. Embrace the liturgy! — ssu

As a signal of your virtue, that's very helpful. Thank you! As a means to secure a sustainable future, worse than useless, but at least we know that you are morally superior!

I do not consider myself privileged relative to future generations - whom, I hope - will inherit a high energy, prosperous and sustainable future - rather than the low energy, authoritarian, poor and over-populated world that is the natural consequence of a pay more, have less, stop this, tax that - limits to growth approach to sustainability!

We can have more and better, because ultimately, resources are a function of the energy available to create them. From the massive heat energy of magma, we can create limitless clean electricity, to power carbon capture and storage, desalination and irrigation, hydrogen fuel, and recycling, and live well long into the future. So, other than you signalling your virtue, there's no good reason to sail off the edge of the map, flogging ourselves as we go!

What do you mean by the elite giving room for wokeness? — praxis

I mean that the elite is totally OK with the "woke" agenda and discourse being on the center stage of the public discourse. That corporations and organizations are keen embrace it and not dismiss it and especially not to be against it is what I had in mind when talking about "giving room". The reason is that the woke agenda doesn't actually threaten the corporations or the power elite. Just think about how a tiny minority are transsexual people? Likely the tiny minority group is happy to get heard, but in wider realm these issues of what could be described as part of the "culture wars" are simply a distraction.