Civilisation collapse is an interesting topic. There is evidence of them imploding, over exploiting resources or succumbing to disease. In the case of easter Island, they became extinct.

I doubt very much that any of these means would wipe out humanity. That would require a significant natural intervention, like an asteroid, or rapid changes in the global conditions. However I consider our current bloated civilisation(in terms of numbers) to be more vulnerable than smaller cases.

The issue with climate change is the consequences of a rapid mass extinction, or the rapid changes that would result from a runaway climate change process. These would both impact simultaneously and I doubt if humanity would survive. Although some mammals might survive, or vertebrates at least.

If mammals survived humanity would evolve again.

In the event that we mitigated climate change rapidly and managed to reverse it to some extent, we might just hang on. Although this would depend on the extinction event to be quite limited and the runaway affects of climate change were slowed sufficiently for us and nature to adapt.

Fair dues.

My biggest fear now is that humanity and the earth will be decimated by the attempts to "solve" global-warming/climate-change.

Your arguments fail if one simply substitutes the idea of pollution for the idea of greenhouse gasses.

The collapse you describe in the economy is not such a big threat. It will be painful and might required decades of authoritarianism and revolution. Or even a collapse in civilisation. But the threat from climate change is existential. Anyone who has looked into it realises this and usually refrains from telling others for fear of becoming a doom monger.

Peaceful coexistence is fine, there is no need to go the whole hog and 'mesh with western values' not sure what they are. After all, the Abraham accords were all about peace.

Yes that would be great. For a while after WW2 it looked as though it could have gone that way.

By mesh with western values I mean they didn’t conform with political, cultural and social norms. This isn’t a criticism of the Arabic way of life, they are just different to the established western world order. The blame for the failure to live peacefully alongside following the WW2 falls fairly and squarely on the U.S./U.K. coalition.

The decent into McCarthyism in the U.S. following WW2 and the pathological paranoia about communism is the root of the failure.

And then you immediately have the following problem: only efficiently strong countries can keep peace. Lebanon and Syria are on brink of being failed states. How does the PA suddenly become a strong country? Egypt is strong enough, even if the 'Arab street' hates the peace with Israel. Yet Palestinians aren't Egyptians. Far easily populists in the Palestinian side could pose this as just a part of throwing back the crusaders. After all, it took 192 years to throw out the Crusaders.

I don’t want to be the party pooper, but if the hat fits…

These failed states are spreading, along with extremism. The large power blocks really should hunker down now and prepare for climate breakdown.

It is a tragedy that the Arab world has failed to mesh with western values, for whatever reasons. I’m not blaming them, the blame stands more with the duelling between the US and the Soviets.
Even the rich Arab states, who were spared due to their oil, are living on borrowed time.

Likely the power blocks, North America, Europe, China, will build metaphorical walls and even real walls eventually. Whether any other blocks can form quickly enough to build stability, we will have to see. If not they will probably join the failed states.

Their strategy is in part predicated on the special resonance of Israel, and so it shapes their decisions in what seem to be fundemental ways.

Quite the Israel Palestine problem is the touch stone for movements in geopolitics. Quite literally at the wailing wall and the temple of the mount.

Although, I suspect that it’s importance will wane as the Global South and Far East become more active on the global stage.

Just curious. What “made” them a state?

The usual suspect.

I’m not a fan of the empire.

Yes, I know. That’s why I can’t see a solution which is acceptable to both sides.
As we are all I can see is the Palestinians being entirely removed from the land which Israel deems part of Israel. With the backing of the US and an international coalition.

There is another outcome which is less likely, that Israel becomes a failed state like Syria, or Iraq. But even then, the Palestinians will still likely be removed.

Hence I'm firmly in the view that this conflict has no peaceful solution anywhere near.

Yes, there is no chance of a peaceful solution which both sides accept on the horizon*.

For either side the other side would need to accept what they will never accept and even if they did reach a compromise, which is impossible, it would be impossible to keep the peace in the long term.


*I don’t like to talk in these blunt terms and would prefer to believe that this could return to the 2 state solution as has been outlined numerous times.

I see Israel as the 51st state of the US. But it’s more than that, the Jewish diaspora from all Western nations see her as their homeland and many go to live there. Maybe do some settling. This has resulted in a complex situation in which society in these nations feel a kinship with Israel. See her as “western”, while she is a construct, shaped in the psyche of the Jewish people.

The state of Israel has drifted into an apartheid state subjugating the Palestinian population. Her Western allies are perceived as endorsing Israel’s project through their inaction, or failures, in insisting that Israel observe Western protocols.
This would explain why Western leaders feel they have to turn a blind eye to Israel’s genocide. They are impotent, Their populations are being gaslit with Israeli propaganda, lobbying and influence.

The only person who could exercise influence on Netanyahu now is Biden. If he makes a wrong step Trump and Co would launch a campaign labelling him as anti-Semitic etc, weakening him prior to the next election.

Tonight the IDF is closing the noose on Al-Sheifa hospital. Arabic Twitter etc is watching closely and talking of consequences. Let’s hope they can restrain themselves.

Al-Shifa hospital is in a catastrophic situation, the IDF is less than a kilometre away with intensive fighting, as I write. Many thousands of civilians are sheltering there.
What happens next will speak volumes.
https://www.rte.ie/news/world/2023/1108/1415313-msf-gaza/

The difference is that Israel is a small state surrounded by many unstable autocratic states. If they over react they will let the genie out of the bottle.

Are only in theory.

So there is to be an iron curtain, after all. It’s simply a question of its precise location now.

You put so much on the shoulders of ex-vikings, the Normans? The invasions for Ireland started only in the 12th Century and I don't know just how English were the Norman and the Plantagenet kings were.

And I'm not so sure if English rulers would have been less bellicose if Harold Godwinson would have won the battle of Hastings.

I go back to that event because for most of that thousand years those Norman baron’s colonised and controlled British society. It did fade into the aristocracy in recent centuries. However we still live very much under their legacy. And their direct decedents were and in some cases still are major land owners.
It’s not so important who they were, but more that the reigns of power were held by this group for most of our recent history(post 1066).

The buccaneering started in 1066. A thousand years of empire.

There are bigger problems than Brexit at the moment. All public services and a lot of sectors are in crisis, or collapsing. Brexit adds a bit to this, but this failure along with economic failure is more as a result of a decade of austerity followed by the pandemic.
The idea that Brexit was a mistake is spreading, which is now a majority view. But neither of the big two political party’s are talking about any attempt to forge closer links with the EU. Both ruling out rejoining SM, or CU.

The Tory political tradition via Eton and Oxford is a hangover from the British imperialism of the 19th century. Hopefully it is now broken.

The economic crisis in the U.K. is really dire. I heard an influential Tory backer interviewed on Radio 4 this morning. Saying that Brexit is a mistake, that the U.K. will become the sick man of Europe again and will probably be bailed out by the IMF.

“The steal”. Will Boris’s support swing behind Mordaunt now.

The people you mention are indeed indoctrinated to believe they are the chosen ones who were born to lord it over the masses. They can't do it without many members of the masses supporting them. They are expert manipulators of the politically ignorant mind

Yes, my point is that this model is now broken. The Tory’s have succeeded in gaslighting the population since the establishment of the 1922 committee. It’s poignant that this will come to an end exactly 100yrs later.

I’m working on the assumption that the Tory party are finished as a political force.

Could Boris be the British Berlusconi? In the country of Britaly.

Cambridge University is woke by comparison with Oxford.
It’s simply the Chanels established by the political elites. Through which the chosen ones pass on their path to power.

The most important development will be the end of the tradition of people from the privileged upper middle classes being groomed for a life in politics. Eton and Oxford are responsible for perpetuating this.
It looks as though this might now be happening.

looks as though the Tory’s are descending into chaos. They are confident that they will coalesce behind a new PM within a week. While their party is splitting into at least 5 factions. Time to get the popcorn out.

The Tory’s have done the right thing. It is imperative that they self destruct and retreat into electoral oblivion. So that we can rebuild our country. If they were to win the next general election it would be a dark day for the U.K. The populism and economic failures we are experiencing would be baked in, endorsed and the populism would take a more aggressive, destructive form.

As I see it, it wasn’t that expansion which caused the issue in the U.K. It was the total open door policy without any organised provision of housing, services infrastructure to accommodate the newcomers.

This resulted in exploitation by gang masters, community tensions and immigrants retreating into sink towns. All good breeding ground for populists.

At a deeper, political philosophy level, I see it as clinching to the past in an overly irrational way, as explained. And sure enough, every country has its traditionalists and blaming Brussels is always convenient. But you guys really lived your isolationist dream.

I would point out another dimension to the Brexit debate. That it was also about an existential crisis within the Conservative party. The majority of the British people had no concerns with EU membership before they had their ears turned by disingenuous politicians.

The accession of Eastern European nations in the EU in 2004 did result in a large influx of EU workers into the U.K. It was poorly managed and provided fuel for populists, who had emerged from the Tory party. This is when it became a live issue.

Democracy is not yet dead in the U.K.
https://twitter.com/BestForBritain/status/1529462147985588225?s=20&t=kw1TbxkbuUN8NXy8Ejk_GA

I just discovered that people all over the world know about Sesame St.

Mind blown.

That’s not the half of it. I was brought up on Tom and Jerry, Banana Splits, Whacky Races, etc etc.

Question for everyone on this thread: If you could avoid countless deaths and possibly nuclear war by allowing Russia to take Ukraine, would you?

I sympathise with your proposition as a means to avoid destruction of the species. I suggest it is complicated when it comes to geopolitics and it is going well when there is a period of stability(Cold War for example). What is more important in reference to Russia is the moving away by Europe from buying Russian oil and gas. If Russia had taken Ukraine and the oil and gas revenue had continued to pour in then Putin’s strategy would be reinforced and he would then push on into other Eastern European states.

In geopolitical terms powerful, wealthy countries are fine when they are stable and cooperative with other powerful countries. When a powerful country becomes unstable and expansionist it triggers the risk of world war. Now in the 21st Century it’s time for humanity to go beyond this kind of instability and focus our resources in more important issues such as climate change and ecosystem collapse.

I would suggest though that as the climate crisis hits, geopolitics will evolve into powerful countries helping each other out as crises become more serious for each of them. A good example is the current ecological crisis hitting India. They are currently experiencing an extreme heat wave, which has destroyed a lot of this years crops. Resulting in a ban on exports of grain, a couple of days ago. The worlds second largest grain producer. This at a time when the worlds 3rd largest grain producer, Ukraine can’t export a lot of its harvest. India has the largest population, having recently outstripped China. Will likely experience famine over the next few years. This may only be a harbinger for far worse ecological crisis over the next decade.

The Finns and Swedes can join NATO or any other organization they like to. I think the real problem, or tragedy, actually, is that so many people (on both sides) are getting killed for the sake of politicians.

Yes, this is why some kind of long term impasse is required. Such as a return to the Cold War.

It appears that Russia(Putin’s regime) hasn’t moved on from the Cold War like the rest of us(following the fall of the USSR). She will drag us back into it now, at great personal cost.

No, it would be to conduct foreign policy taking into account the whim of one's adversary... you know, like strategists actually do in the real world,

Precisely and that is what Finland has done. It was literally on Putin’s whim that Russian troops entered Ukraine. Finland watched this move and then applied to join NATO.

Can’t you see it yet? The location of the new Iron curtain is being decided.

You said "Putin's threat". Lavrov is not Putin. And you're not saying which of "Lavrov's comments" you're referring to.

Putin appears to be and wants to depict himself as taking advice on this from Lavrov. Lavrov is using weasel words with veiled threats. There was also a mention of WW3 in another comment.

As I say sufficient cause for Finland and Sweden to join NATO. Because this would be part of a defensive strategy and the threats I refer to are real threats which this strategy addresses. Whether, or not they are real threats, is irrelevant now. The threshold of risk has obviously been reached.

One could say that this is Putin’s strategy, to galvanise, expand and strengthen NATO.

The question is whether an expanding NATO will act as deterrent or provocation for the aforementioned autocrat.

That would be to conduct foreign policy by the whim of one’s adversary.

And Lavrov’s comments?

Clearly not. One possible risk is that its expansion decreases global security. It's not defending against that risk, is it?

Oh, I forgot to mention that it’s move to defend against threats doesn’t necessarily include its threat to itself.

Wait, so now Russia is a threat to NATO? A minute ago Russia wouldn't dare strike against NATO. That's why Sweden and Finland were joining. If Russia are s threat to NATO, Sweden and Finland would be better off independent.

I was talking about Putin, you know the autocrat with his finger on the button. Oh and also there is the rhetoric from Lavrov on the issue of nuclear war. As I say, here is justification enough for these developments in NATO.

So Finland is joining NATO because something which no-one is even sure happened might happen to them and somehow NATO can stop it?

Yes, it is a defensive alliance. What it is defending against is all possible risks, not actual current risks.
In reality there will be intelligence which onlookers are not aware of as to what these risks are

I don't think it's why they want to join NATO either, I'm arguing against that position. I suspect they want to join NATO because it's newfound status as 'Good Guy' makes it politically expedient ally.

There’s always political expediency going on in a country. That is not the precursor to this development.

Putin’s explicit nuclear threat against NATO is justification/reason enough for all current developments regarding NATO.

The question was why Finland wants to join NATO

The answer was implied in my response;
“Like the infiltrators they sent into Donbas prior to the special military operation in 2014.”
If Finland were in NATO this would be less likely to happen in Finland.

I asked why Finland would want to join NATO if it had no credible threat

I don’t accept this premise (although, I would agree if you were referring to a full military invasion of Finland by Russia). It’s true, I doubt at the moment that Finland is under threat from a Russian invasion in the current circumstances. But that is not necessarily why they want to join NATO.


Regarding the infiltrators, it cannot be proved either way what role they have played in “the special military operation”