The utter inability to see fault in both parties is interesting, but very typical. As a foreigner, I think both parties are quite dubious here: first the Democratic Party had an obvious long lasting racist history and then the Republicans were all too happy to get the former white base that the Democrats "lost" during the 60's with the Civil Rights etc. That puts both parties to shame. It reeks to just a calculated political move that for both didn't have much to do with ideology.

What is also important to notice that these parties can change quite rapidly, basically last time it happened in just one decade. Today's parties might not be the ones from five years from now.

And the sad thing is that these two parties sustain their power grab of the political field by making it so toxic and polarizing.

Yes, it is totally unimportant. You see, the United States Republican Party used to be liberal and the United States Democrat Party used to be conservative. — James Riley

That parties have dramatically changed in time is in my view a noteworthy fact, not something totally unimportant.

Doesn't that seem childishly black and white? As if the other side isn't equally corrupt?

There are some philosophical differences, otherwise people are people. — frank

No, Frank, it does not. We are not talking about "the other side." We are talking about fascist nationalist racist evil. The truth has a liberal bias. Good does not sit around and give the benefit of the doubt to King George, Jefferson Davis, Nathan Bedford Forrest, Emperor of Japan, Adolf Hitler, Donald Trump or any other worthless POS. — James Riley

So the history that Jefferson Davis was from the Democratic Party is totally unimportant here? It doesn't matter what a political party was for earlier (before the parties switched voters)? I'd still think that both parties have their own skeletons in their closet. You can just argue that one has more than the other.

In America (and probable elsewhere as well), the Bernie Madoff law of the jungle applies: the rich & powerful elites only get prosecuted, even convicted and imprisoned, when they flagrantly steal from and/or harm other rich & powerful elites. — 180 Proof

You should not forget the most important thing with Madoff: He pleaded guilty basically immediately and did not plea bargain with the government. When the person is so exhausted from upholding the ponzi scheme, that he voluntarily gives it up....then US laws are enforced. Hooray.

A lot of similar con men just waited for the stocks to recover...and didn't go to jail. In fact, nearly nobody else went to jail (unlike back in time with the Savings & Loans crisis).

That may be.

A Crack-up Boom is surely a possibility that is happening just now. Doubling the balance sheet of the Federal Reserve IN ONE YEAR has to have effects. Last time it was during the 2007 recession. How many more times will it work? Inflation is picking up, yet hyperinflation is a totally different creature. And the monetary velocity is plunging. At least with the lockdown.

Balance sheet of the Federal Reserve:


A financial collapse could spell doom for the two-party system. After the pandemic lockdown the last thing the American voter wants is a repeat financial crisis (or the same one coming back). At least it would be a severe political crisis under any circumstance. Basically the US would start to resemble more and more Mexico and less Canada. Yet it should it be noted that the doomsayers have been predicting imminent collapse since 2007 (or earlier). That's fourteen years ago.

Yes, but not umm...me. :yikes:

I guess many political parties will say that they are doing Gods work. Although believing in “The laws of nature and nature’s God” sounds rather peculiar. I wonder what kind of debate has gotten a result like that.

You don't get it.

Everybody else is racist and sexist. Everybody else is stupid or brainwashed and chooses to believe in religious fairy tales over material reality. Only people like me are strong enough to face reality in its true form and understand that the people must actively take power from our powerful oppressors and in turn reclaim control our own destiny. If we need to break a few eggs to make the omelette then so be it - that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make to my own mental health if it means a better future for humanity. — K Turner

I'm not sure if there's any sarcasm in what you say.

Well, off you go to the barricades...

Well, sometime in the future this hole system based on debt might need drastic "restructuring".

That might not be so nice. But then again, it wouldn't be the first time when a lot of people lose their life savings.

I think Trump's success was from the fact that he seemed like a disruptor, so it's not really two sides at odds. It's a growing grassroots movement to ditch both parties. — frank

This is true.

So far it has been the GOP that has felt this more. Yet both parties have had the ability to somehow cope with this when you look at the timeline.

With the GOP it was first the Ron Paul candidacy, then that transformed to the "Tea Party" and then finally to Trump getting the nomination and becoming president. With the DNC it has been a somewaht similar line: first it was the Occupy Movement, then the Bernie Sanders tickets. The DNC has for at least now has not lost the control of the party and has been able to counter the protest movement and criticism with AOC and Bernie etc.

Yet it's doubtful if the two party system can refrain the political turmoil IF their is a hard economic downturn. If the economy survives well enough, there will be no problem. But if you have now a downturn after all the stimulus, then it might get really, really ugly.

It seems these days the differences are becoming more extreme, with the Republicans going insane. — Xtrix

Or it's the polarization of politics in the US.

The Republicans just look more insane for you. Here it should be good to take a few steps back a glance at the politics from another viewpoint.

The reason is that for both parties it has worked well to portray the other party simply going off their rocker. It's the idiotic "Culture war" discourse that takes over nearly every aspect of political discussion. Yet it works. It's the modern social media way of portraying the other side. Claiming to be on the center doesn't work.

The fact is that it seems that there is nobody in the center anymore and the those on the extremes will surely attack people who are in the center. Yet I think many Americans still are in the center.

Yet even if Trump himself was a quite disaster, notice that many Trump administration policies have been continued by the Biden administration (of course not with any public declaration). Hence there is continuity, just as there was when Obama took office from Bush.

I think that the storming of the Capitol has calmed down the desire to embrace the polarization as the US hasn't had huge political fights during the spring and summer. At least many politicians have had enough of this and it tells. Of course, the situation is still tense in the US. One act of violence can again light the flames again. Yet for some time I have not picked up video clips of burning cars, protesters and the police clashing or the military deployed to the streets of some American city. I'd hope it would stay that way.

And now time will tell how much influence Trump actually has with the party. Will all those Trump endorses succeed in getting the nominations in the party? Trump isn't a leader, he is more like an influencer at this stage.

As conservative activists gathered over the weekend in Texas, the state's outgoing Republican Party chairman, Allen West, announced he will challenge incumbent Gov. Greg Abbott in a primary next year, even though Abbott has the coveted Trump endorsement.

Beyond Texas, the value of Trump's endorsement will be tested in North Carolina, Alabama and other states with competitive Republican primaries in which the former president has picked a candidate.

Some delegates to the Conservative Political Action Conference at a high-end Dallas hotel said they respect Trump, but he won't necessarily determine their vote in elections.

"It's a factor, but I don't know if it's going to be the decisive factor," said Deb Blencowe, 63, a community college teacher from nearby Collin County who leans toward West over Abbott in next year's GOP primary.

I think what tends to happen is that extremists start with some idea (like the Communist Manifesto) that sounds good on paper and that appeals to them emotionally, after which they get carried away and can no longer think rationally. And that's where "revolution", "jihad", or other forms of violence take over. — Apollodorus

This is the problem with idealists and radicals.

Philosophers (or the philosophical types) are often idealists. They get carried so away with the ideology as they put on these ideological glasses on that blend everything to show how great their ideology is and hides the view any negative aspects. And anyone looking at the issues without those glasses and even remotely making a remark about the negative aspects will be seen as the enemy of the wonderful ideology, who then should be attacked.

There are those especially in the intelligentsia who do fall for the "Let's change the World totally"-argument that radical ideologies offer. As these usually have been among the smartest guys or gals around the block, they think that it's their calling, their chance to change the World. They have found their cause (at least for a while, that is). And as they are so smart, that change they are hoping for has to be important, radical, huge. Off with the old futile ideas! And this fits the progressive leftist as well as the right wing libertarian anarcho-capitalist.

I see no reason to take what’s written down too seriously. It’s kind of a joke, actually. — Xtrix

Political agendas, principles and objectives aren't there to be taken literally, but to show what the political party favors and will think to be important. They are more a guide to the political discourse and viewpoints the politicians have than to actual policy decisions. When making actual individual decision there are other issues at hand also.

Yet what they emphasize is no joke. Similarily with the Texas Democrats.

That some industry is subsidized or, well, basically the whole government is running on money printed by the Central bank, doesn't change either the Democrats or the Republicans having their differences.

Both parties are beholden to wealthy interests, and the rest is a matter of degree. — Xtrix

And as long as the ordinary people vote for the two-party system, this will go on.

Science is also a body of knowledge; a worldview, to contrast with an ideological worldview. — counterpunch

More of a view of Scientism than actual science.

We need to look beyond ourselves, and apply the right technology for the right reasons — counterpunch

Societies will function as they do. Don't think you can change them.

We are living now through a time of a global pandemic. We got many vaccines in break neck speed that usually have taken many years to develop. The implemented policies have been quite out of the normal and rapid. Yet the society has functioned as before. Markets have worked, it has been "business as usual" even if it has been totally out of the usual.

Hence this issue has to be dealt realistically, not to assume something that won't happen.

- and that's science — counterpunch

Science is a method of study.

What you are referring to is policy, which a totally different animal.

What about today? — Xtrix

Good question.

Usually parties would have an official webpage where this information would be easy to find. At least the information, what the party says itself it has as it's agenda. With the two American parties that is a bit difficult as they are far more looser entities than political parties in other countries. Hence one should not forget that it is the United States and the state-level shouldn't be forgotten.

Just to take an example, here are the stated guiding beliefs of the Republican Party of Texas. Texas is a red state and one of the most important states for the GOP. Here is the mission statement of the RPT:

PRINCIPLES
We, the Republican Party of Texas, believe in this platform and expect our elected leaders
to uphold these truths through acknowledgement and action. We believe in:
1. “The laws of nature and nature’s God” and we support the strict adherence to the original
language and intent of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitutions of the United
States and of Texas.
2. The sanctity of innocent human life, created in the image of God, which should be protected from fertilization to natural death.
3. Preserving American and Texas sovereignty and freedom.
4. Limiting government power to those items enumerated in the United States and Texas
Constitutions.
5. Personal accountability and responsibility.
6. Self-sufficient families, founded on the traditional marriage of a natural man and a natural
woman.
7. Having an educated population, with parents having the freedom of choice for the education of their children.
8. The inalienable right of all people to defend themselves and their property.
9. A free enterprise society unencumbered by government interference or subsidies.
10. Honoring all of those that serve and protect our freedom.

When you look at that above, it actually does say what modern GOP is all about. Now just compare the above to what the Texas Democrats will tell about themselves and their values:

Our Shared Values
Texas Democrats believe democratic government exists to achieve as a community, state, and nation what we cannot achieve as individuals.

We believe in equal opportunity, fairness, freedom, family, community, and a responsibility to ourselves and each other. These are the values our elders passed down to us, the values we hope to share with our children, and the values we expect from our elected officials.

The Texas Democratic Party is a movement of millions of Texans coming together to fight for our Texas values. We know our state cannot succeed when the deck is stacked against working Texans and their families.

At our core, we are all about a fair shot for all. That’s why Texas Democrats have a plan for jobs with fair pay, strong neighborhood schools, health care for all, debt-free college, investment in job training and technical education, a dignified retirement, and expanded family leave options, so Texans never have to choose between their job or caring for a sick loved one. We will never stop fighting for an economy that works for everybody, not just those at the top.

The idea that the parties don't have any ideology isn't the case. Them sharing the power as a duopoly in the US creates the environment for corruption and other problems. Yet the polarization of American politics can be understood just by looking at the principles and the values written above. Especially, when the two above are the only real alternatives.

I understand your point, but just like with the discussion you have had with @Xtrix about fusion energy where your opinion is just "I'm not optimistic", so too can it be that others are "not too optimistic" about geothermal as a silver bullet answer to everything (as it has high initial capital cost and with the present technology you don't find hot rocks everywhere). Yes, increasing geothermal energy production surely is one thing to do.

In fact many renewables could make the claim to handle all our energy needs "if only" enough should be invested in them and the technology would be improved. But it simply won't happen like that: energy production methods will compete against each other on the market and the price mechanism will select the ones which will dominate the energy sector. And even if for a long time, basically from the time humans had the ability to burn wood, fossil fuels have dominated energy production as it has been the cheapest way to produce energy, it hasn't been that people have used only fossil fuels.

There simply are various ways to produce energy and they simply won't go away. I suspect you don't have anything against hydropower? Those dams already built will likely to be used in the future too.

Oldest hydroelectric powerplant was built in 1882 in Fox River, Wisconsin. Yet the first water wheels go back to Antiquity (just as the idea of windmills).


Model of a Persian Windmill. Note that the Panemone windmill has a vertical axis rotating a millstone:

Exactly! The problem lives in the real world. Energy policies are fashioned by sovereign nation states in service to their interests, and the sum of all national energy policies does not add up to a global energy policy rational to the climate change threat. Hence, we need a global approach to climate change. — counterpunch

Hence?

A global approach that is the sum of the most important nation states, perhaps 20 or so of the largest energy producers, that in aggregate tackles the crisis is what we should aim for. Actually what you said is the real answer: the sum of the largest national energy policies that does add up to tackle the climate change threat. And still those national energy policies will differ...as countries are in different environments. What works for Iceland might not exactly work for Finland. It's not realistic to think that somehow everybody will morph to being Borgs and get to the same conclusion as you have. And why cannot there be a multitude energy resources?

That wouldn't be necessary. Imagine a global effort to develop magma energy technology, and that energy applied initially to carbon capture and storage and desalination and irrigation - thus, mitigating climate change directly, and adapting to climate change due to occur. Energy generating capacity could be developed without disrupting energy markets - and used directly to achieve environmental benefits without imposition upon anyone. — counterpunch

I lost your logic here... Can you explain this better?

Unless you ask - is there a simple logical answer to this? And as it turns out, yes, there is! — counterpunch

There simply is no simple logical answer as this isn't just a "logical" question! Societies that have formed independent nation states is the reality that we live in. To assume it's "logical" to just rule them out not looking at the energy question from their own view isn't realistic. There's no golden bullet. That's just how we operate.

Boycotting a particular country is like running away from danger, but not necessarily running to safety. — baker

A boycott is a hostile action which leads typically to even more tense diplomatic relations between two countries when the boycotts are made on the national level. It should be noted that it's two separate things if some pressure group wants to boycott an entity or nation create legal trade barriers. Next level up is a blockade, which is basically an act of war.

It's not an unreasonable question to ask - if it is possible that humankind might survive? Turns out it is possible - and here's how! What's messianic about that? — counterpunch

Yet what energy policies we choose on this planet is the aggregate sum of the various energy policies the nations states choose and what competition on the free market gives us. The fact is that energy production is such an existential question for our societies that it will be a question of national security to every country. They won't give up the independence to choose their energy production (they are called sovereigns for a reason).

There simply isn't one "logical" answer to this. "Science" doesn't give us one answer. As everybody has noticed, we here on this Planet do not decide these questions as one entity (or have them decided for us by one entity).

If there will be the technology that gives us cheaper geothermal energy anywhere, even in Finland, than by any other production means and this technology is available to everybody, then geothermal will surely dominate.

It's a similar question like if we get low price and highly efficient fusion power online, it will be the answer to a lot of our current problems. But there's that if: if it's price competitive.

Likely at the global scale, energy production will always be a "diverse mix", that's for sure.

In my view, geothermal has been used quite a long time in places with volcanic activity. How about in Finland, where there is a solid bedrock of stone with only ancient traces of past volcanic activity?

The use of geothermal energy in Finland is restricted to the utilization of ground heat with heat pumps. This is due to the geological conditions as Finland is a part of the Fennoscandian (or Baltic) Shield. The bedrock is Precambrian covered with a thin (<5 m) cover of Quaternary sediments. Topography is subdued and does not easily produce advective re-distribution of geothermal heat by groundwater circulation systems. Due to crystalline character of the bedrock, rock porosity and its water content are low. This practically excludes geothermal systems utilizing hot wet rock.

Renewables are maybe "cheaper" now in the abstract, if you'd have to start from nothing, but we're never actually starting from nothing. — ChatteringMonkey

Yet that is the very promising aspect of this technological development: alternative renewables have come down dramatically in price. I think the reason is that enough players do notice the writing on the wall and understand that the dominance of the fossil fuels is going to diminish, hence there is a real competition for the new market shares.



Offshore wind turbines are huge, btw. And out of sight of the NIMBY types.

This make no sense at all, why are they doing this? Even if they don't give a damn about effects on climate change, you'd think they choose the cheaper option. — ChatteringMonkey

Cheaper to whom? Likely sooner or later the iron laws of free market capitalism will take charge, but the transit isn't usually so quick.

I assume that once they have a large coal power plant infrastructure and companies building the power plants, things go with the already input motion. And then there's the political aspects: Trump isn't the politician that wooed and will woo areas where coal mining is important.

Remember? Trump digs coal. Many other politicians do like the votes from coal producing areas too.


Turning around energy policy is easier said than done. And those countries that produce coal will surely look at it also as a security issue in times of war or sanctions etc. If you have domestic resources, they are better than resources that have to be bought on the global market.



Of course the writing is on the wall already. From this chart below the number of jobs in the coal mining sector has halved to 44 000 jobs. So no wonder those areas would be desperate for politicians promising a change.

I'd be curious to know what kind of debate there was in Japan before they decided to build a bunch of coal burning plants. — frank

Actually now they are coming to grasp how utterly stupid this is.

(Bloomberg, April 2021) A joint venture in Japan has scrapped plans for a coal-fired power plant, leaving the country with no new construction on the horizon as companies drop the dirty fuel amid tighter emissions rules and strong growth outlook for renewables.

Kansai Electric Power Co. and Marubeni Corp. won’t move forward with a 1.3 gigawatt coal power project in Akita prefecture that was slated to begin operations in 2024, a unit of Kansai Electric said Tuesday.

The firms decided to cancel the project due to the government’s tighter environmental rules and banks curbing financing for carbon-intensive projects, the Nikkei reported ahead of the announcement. The companies are considering building a cleaner biomass facility instead, the Nikkei said.

While there are still several coal projects currently under construction, Japan has no plans for additional new plants, according to BloombergNEF. A 1.2 gigawatt coal project in Yamaguchi prefecture was also canned earlier this month as electricity demand was expected to remain flat, while renewable energy expands.

So just several coal plants are under construction. But they do also have two nuclear power plant under construction. Here's how nuclear energy is being built (stats by IAEA):


Country Number of Reactors_____ Total Net Electrical Capacity [MW]
ARGENTINA 1 ________________ 25
BANGLADESH 2 ________________ 2160
BELARUS 1 ________________ 1110
BRAZIL 1 ________________ 1340
CHINA 13 ________________ 12565
FINLAND 1 ________________ 1600
FRANCE 1 ________________ 1630
INDIA 6 ________________ 4194
IRAN, ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF 1 ___ 974
JAPAN 2 ________________ 2653
KOREA, REPUBLIC OF 4 __________ 5360
PAKISTAN 1 ________________ 1014
RUSSIA 3 ________________ 3459
SLOVAKIA 2 ________________ 880
TURKEY 3 ________________ 3342
UKRAINE 2 ________________ 2070
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES 3 _______ 4035
UNITED KINGDOM 2 ________ 3260
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2___ 2234

With that, let's compare that above to coal plants being under construction.

(The Guardian, June 2021) Five Asian countries are jeopardising global climate ambitions by investing in 80% of the world’s planned new coal plants, according to a report.

Carbon Tracker, a financial thinktank, has found that China, India, Indonesia, Japan and Vietnam plan to build more than 600 coal power units, even though renewable energy is cheaper than most new coal plants.

The investments in one of the most environmentally damaging sources of energy could generate a total of 300 gigawatts of energy – enough to power the UK more than three times over – despite calls from climate experts at the UN for all new coal plants to be cancelled.

Catharina Hillenbrand von der Neyen, the author of the report, said: “These last bastions of coal power are swimming against the tide, when renewables offer a cheaper solution that supports global climate targets. Investors should steer clear of new coal projects, many of which are likely to generate negative returns from the outset.”

So just five Asian countries are building over 600 coal plants with over 300 gigawats (300 000 MW), while only 51 nuclear power plants are built producing under 54 gigawats of power.

Anyway, there is an very interesting and eye opening Global Coal Plant Tracker , which I advise to people to look at. A lot of info on coal plants!

(Here's what it looks like:)

Definitely. But we'll have to transition to another energy source sooner or later. There's a limited amount of hydrocarbons to burn. — frank

Limited yes, but never forget the price mechanism: with higher price, more costly production methods and resources become profitable. And here is where the "feelgood" narrative of wishful high minded thinking stumbles upon ignorance of the actual reality. It is far too easy for the high minded to simply declare that we have to consume less.

The best example in my view are the hostile attitudes towards nuclear energy, a zero emissions energy resource. Countries that have made decisions either to go off or radically reduce nuclear energy have either simply not kept their promises (Sweden) or then built coal plants (Japan) or resorted to export energy typically from coal plants (Germany). Japan, where nobody did die in the Fukushima accident (but many thousands in the actual Tsunami in 2011) just shows how illogical energy policy can be:

(Feb 5th, 2020 the NY Times) It is one unintended consequence of the Fukushima nuclear disaster almost a decade ago, which forced Japan to all but close its nuclear power program. Japan now plans to build as many as 22 new coal-burning power plants — one of the dirtiest sources of electricity — at 17 different sites in the next five years, just at a time when the world needs to slash carbon dioxide emissions to fight global warming.

Electricity production by fossil fuels has increased in Japan:

I agree. I spent a while immersed in the Bronze Age collapse, which was probably a result of natural disasters, war, and civil unrest.

In a short amount of time, two cultures just disappeared. No one factor would have brought the bronze age down. It was the combination of forces.

So the troubled times ahead will have climate change amplifying whatever stresses are native to the situation. — frank

Yet the Bronze Age collapse didn't mean that humans became extinct. The wording which many here use of an "existential" threat in my view shouldn't taken literally as an extinction event of the human race. Earth has had mass extinction events and some say that the change that now species are dying at such rate that one can say that this is a mass extinction event. However the collapse of our present way of life is something totally different from the extinction of the human race. There never has been such an adaptive animal as us, so the idea that climate change will doom us is in my view an exaggeration.

What happens to our current society is another thing. Yet even if that "collapses", it really doesn't mean an existential danger to the human race.

And to make this point, notice that we are living through one of the worst pandemics which was just a few years ago a hypothetical scenario, and we have adapted.

Better than building rabbit-proof fences, yeah. This mentality is what I was thinking of btw:
— Kenosha Kid

I mean yeah there's all this science, but what are we supposed to do about it? Just cut out fossil fuels without a real replacement? To me that's scary. Epstein's point is that fossil fuels protect and enhance people's lives. Fossil fuels protect people from heat waves. And yet the environmentalists want to limit them. I find it to be worrisome.

@Kasperanza

This is very typical in my experience. It'd be like trying to ban guns in the US, people would just lose their minds. — Kenosha Kid

Sometimes it's hard to even face the facts how these things work. Like a Democrat administration banning guns in the current political environment wouldn't do wonders to the already vitriolic political environment. The same problems are when we let's say talk about replacing fossil fuels. The way things work in our global economy is that you would have the cheaper alternative energy resource. Even that still would leave the plethora of uses that for example oil has, which shouldn't be forgotten.



And perhaps there is the distinction of whom we want to listen. We will listen to the scientist and to the activist we agree with. Yet many would be hesitant to listening to economists or people from the corporate sector who basically are in charge of these issues (as we don't trust them). Yet the issue isn't just environmental, it is economic, logistical and political. All those issues have to be tackled before we have the true environmental solution. Otherwise the politicians will just fool us with grand promises of getting solutions in a decade or two that will not become reality.

I'm talking about human life, not general biological life. So in case that wasn't clear, there you go. Yes, bacteria will probably go on without us. That's little consolation to me, my grandkids, or my great-great grandkids. — Xtrix

Well, then we should not say that the goal is to save the World, but just to say to help us and the few next generations of humans after us.

That doesn't provide perspective at all, really. Not if we're talking about human life. Because, if you notice, we haven't been around that long. Behaviorally modern humans, maybe 200 or so thousand years. Better to look at that record. Also best to take a look at what scientists say about this and why it's important. — Xtrix

A holistic view is sometimes quite important. You see, if you start from thinking about yourself and then come to conclusions to what to do, you might not think about the broader effects your actions do.

Understanding that we are a part of nature too, helps think of the situation better in my view.

You can't sell bat soup as a well grounded, rational hypothesis while not only immediately the Wuhan lab hypothesis as mere conspiracy theory AND do this with either your request or tacit expectation that digital media will remove posts and videos about the lab hypothesis AND publish fact checker denials that this is a mere conspiracy theory — Bylaw

This is the problem. And that those who have a lot to lose (who even might face legal suits) then being on the WHO team looking at the Wuhan lab possibility doesn't raise the confidence.

The confidence can be also lost by the totally absurd line when the pandemic erupted that "masks don't work". That was the low point of trying not to have people hoarding them when even health care workers had problems to get them. A far better line would have been: "Masks work, but now there is such a bottleneck in the production that we advise ordinary people not to use them before the supply issues are resolved". Face the truth, say how things are. (And btw, market mechanism did work and now there are enough masks)

This isn't helping much as there are so many totally bonkers views spreading distrust about vaccination and about modern medicine in general. Unfortunately public discourse is totally incapable of separating the loony from the more credible arguments and the typical line today is to censure everything by simple algorithms.

There are multiple potential tipping points. See above for some links, or you can Google "climate tipping points."

Climate change in this context refers to a rapid change in the Earth's climate driven by human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels. — Xtrix

Then the solution is simply to create a cheaper energy resource that burning fossil fuels. Even in aircraft design they are looking for using other fuels.

But I guess the perspective still is on our own asses, because life on Earth will surely adapt to situations where the polar caps have melted etc. We humans on the other hand might have huge problems.

Global temperatures, historical:


And a bit more perspective to those changes:

There are lots of apocalyptic scenarios, but also lots of survivalist scenarios. Even some of the apocalyptic ones are quite optimistic: we might wipe ourselves out, maybe take a lot of species with is, but leave a living planet that obtains some kind of harmony. That's not necessarily a bad outcome. — Kenosha Kid

Perhaps one philosophical question (as this is a Philosophy Forum) is the following: Do we look at ourselves as being part of the fauna on Earth or do we have the somewhat Christian view that this is a garden that has been given us to keep and make the separation with nature and us. Some might say that this is totally unimportant, but actually it's very important.

As never in the timeline of life on Earth has one single species been so dominant and abundant, it's not surprising that it can teeter on a collapse based on it's own existence. The whole advanced economy (that we call globalization) is needed to sustain such large populations. But at least I'm an optimist. We have already seen Peak-conventional-Oil (production). And we are living during one of the worst pandemics in history.

Still life is quite good and I can discuss this issue with people I don't personally know that are on other continents.

(Some other species have difficulties, when humans have introduced them to habitats without enough predators...building more advanced societies would help.)

Is it already too late? — Xtrix

No, the sun will not kill all life on this planet for some 5 billion years or so. The future after that is bleak for life on our planet.

If so, will we reach tipping points no matter what policies we enact? — Xtrix

First you should define just what is the tipping point you refer to. Or what you have in mind with climate change.

Will we actually turn ourselves into Venus? — Xtrix

No. If people take your question literally and not as a figure of speech. (Do you know the environment in Venus?)

If it's not too late, what exactly can we do to contribute to mitigating it? — Xtrix

A lot of things. Radical changes, not so radical changes and everything between. Unfortunately there the actual policy actions, the scientific socio-economic policy discourse, and the politicized agenda-driven public debate have veered all into different realms.

But we can have an effect on our environment. Even if I'm not so sure that with the current numbers of nuclear weapons detonating all of them would actually cause a nuclear winter. A super-volcano eruption would make global warming not the climate change we are worried about.

Well, I don't think you are a racist and in my view that you perhaps benefit from the existing social structure doesn't make you a racist either. And just how much you benefit is more interesting question here, which is the real issue to be made more aware here I guess.

But of course, anyone who recognizes this and then simply claims the mantle of racist ought to be treated like the piece of shit they are, rather than sympathised with, as you are wont to do. — StreetlightX

Hopefully I understood you correct. Yet the argument was "all Australians are racists". The issue to be recognized would be if you are an Australian or not. Or to make it more clear, let's make it that "all white Australians are racists". Now if you fit into that category (being a white Australian), then would your benefiting of the current system make you a racist?

I don't think so.

I would still start with the classic definition that a racist is:

"a person who is prejudiced against or antagonistic towards people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized."

You getting a job interview easier than someone else doesn't in my view make you "prejudiced or antagonistic" toward racial minorities. It really is about your own thinking and own decisions that make you a racist or not. When you decide which people to pick to the job interview is the moment, when you participate in a job interview isn't.

widespread, systemic racism can very easily exist without the express help of avowed racists. — StreetlightX

Then how to engage those others that aren't avowed racists is the question. Because calling them racists will make them think that they are called to be the "avowed racists", which they are not.

Love to know?

I doubt it.

If racism was defined to be that all Australians are racists (because let's just look at the obvious history of Australia), then wouldn't you be a racist? Likely you (and me) wouldn't agree with the definition racism.

I'll watch the video you link another time but Charles Murray is a well-known white supremacist — 180 Proof

You will?

Yet I'd disagree. I think that racists will just abuse the findings of Murray, which is quite obvious: they will pick what they want to hear. Yet if all Americans would be of the same "race" with the same skin color, there still would be those (what you now call racists) who then only would be looking down own the poor, the so-called trash (which actually they are calling the poor whites) and would similarly separate the people into different categories: themselves in a higher category than others. And if some Murray-like academic would dare to say that poor people engage in violent crime far more than the wealthy, the outrage would be the same. How dare this person give ammo to those racists! Yet the obvious thing is that with the poorer segments of any society there is more violent crime among them than the more prosperous people. What is wrong is to judge all poor people. In my view facts don't give any proof to the racist: people should be treated as individuals and I'm against judging people as part of a larger group.

Well yes because now you know who are racists. Also if being called a racist epiphanies you in to accepting the label, then you are a shit person at every point. But good to see you are concerned for them. — StreetlightX

And if you don't judge people as individuals but members of their race who then bare a collective responsibility, aren't you the racist here? A shit person at every point?

Sometimes I don't understand Americans.

Here is Glenn Loury, a black economics professor, talking to Charles Murray, a white nationalist according to the Southern Povetry Law Center. I would urge people to spare some time to listen to this exchange of thoughts (1h 10 min), if you have the time.



Perhaps it's my Finnish genetic stupidity or integral ignorance (as I'm an European, hence totally incapable of understanding the US), but Murray doesn't sound as a white nationalist. Not at all to my knowledge. I do know what white supremacists sound like (at least in Finland), and Murray doesn't sound like them. In fact what Murray is worried about among the right isn't the classic "white nationalists", the neo-nazis, but the whites that will have had enough with the current politically correct discourse. I fear this too. If you say over and over to people that they are fucking racists, some will then say "Ok, then I'm a fucking racists, so fuck you". Will that really help? Or is that the objective? What I fear is that the US is heading for a clash it cannot solve.

I don't see the way how Americans would "get over this"or "come together". Nobody is interested in building a consensus. Nobody, I mean nobody is emphasizing that all Americans are citizens of one nation. That unfortunately is how it seems. That's the really sad part here.

Because there are enough firearms to turn everything into a huge tragedy.

I think instead of being afraid of dying, we are actually afraid of the way we will die. — darthbarracuda

I don't think so.

What I am afraid about is the effect that my death will have on other people's lives, like my children, and of course what I would be missing out if I died now. All the happy events, the memorable situations, the exiting moments that life has to offer.

My mother died when I was a teen. It sucked. I wouldn't want my children to lose their father at a young age, it really creates a void. At least now they will surely remember me. I would have liked to have had my mother for longer. She would have surely loved her grandchildren. And I've seen how much sorrow and sadness there is when parents lose their child. It really is the case that children should bury their parents, not the other way around. If you have parents that love you, think about how they would feel if you die.

At older age some are ready to die. They have seen their friends or their loved ones died and have not much to do, especially if they are sick. For many people it's actually a relief.

If you have nobody, absolutely nobody in this World that cares about you or for whom you are important, then perhaps the only thing that you might be afraid of death is the pain or the way you go. The World will hardly notice your departure.

Great article.

A lab leak happening in the Soviet Union (or China) will automatically create a discussion on how safe our laboratories are and if they ought to study such things. And some will think this will be very bad and assume people cannot fathom that safety-cultures really differ from place to place. So there is a reason why to go along with the official line, even if privately you are suspicious about it.

With for example the public discussion around nuclear energy, I do understand these fears.

Yeah, perhaps you missed the "similar" part, which is crucial. No one, least of all me, is advocating for a particular religion. — Xtrix

That is a good start.

Yet my main point is that a "religious" approach is easy, but can be very counterproductive. Our society and nature are so complex, that the short nice sounding solutions can actually be really bad. A person wanting to commit into something good, the simple easy solutions might be the ones they tug along with. Yet if you start from a moral stance, then you won't be listening to the counterpoints. All people will hear is that someone is attacking a good moral value.

At this point, I think what's needed is an awakening similar to a religious conversion in the sense of a complete change in perspective, and one that has to be reached on a global scale. — Xtrix

What we really DO NOT NEED are religious awakenings, mantras that repeated as pseudo-religious chants without much if any thought given to what actually is said. Keep religion away. These problems will not be solved by faith based strategies, on the contrary!

What we need is clear thinking and sound approaches to how to solve problems that take into considerations various points of view, factors and data. The boring complex engineering stuff, the extremely annoying political consensus building. To the idealist yearning for a new World, this all is a disappointment. But idealists shouldn't make the decisions, their role is to get others to think about the issues, not to decide what is done. And hell with the neo-religious moral babble!!!

What will it take to eradicate nuclear weapons and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to zero? (To name only two.) — Xtrix

Starting with those.

So what is the problem you have with volcanoes erupting or natural forest fires? Just look at what you write and consider it taken literally.

Zero emissions.

All greenhouse gas emissions.

I guess I committed a crime tonight when I warmed the water front sauna with couple pieces of wood. And in the winter, guess I cannot heat the summerplace using wood either. Better just rely on the electricity produced by a nuclear plant and buy more electric heaters.

And then the nukes. How about other WMDs? And where do you draw the line then? Can there be a thing called military deterrence or is that bad too? Is military strategy allowed? How about the possibility that we would have more wars, more conflict when there would be no WMDs? Or is that a morally wrong question to even utter in the new religious awakening?

Complex problems have to tackled without having moral blinders on.

Here's your chance to ask questions about philosophy, request information about different schools of philosophy. — Wheatley

Great!

Here's my two questions.

Due to the language, American and British philosophy are usually linked together (especially when people talk about the Anglosphere). And Analytic School is given as an example (although this school has beached to other countries too).

Yet are there differences between British and US schools of philosophy?

Is (was) for example pragmatism a solely American endeavor?

I have searched on and off for years on what philosophical movements promote, or are in agreement with, the idea that everything in our experience can be interpreted/translated as mathematics. — Paul Fishwick

I'd agree with this if one important and logical field of mathematics is taken into account: the uncomputable and the incommeasurable.

Then math explains everything.

The problem is that a lot is there in which you cannot make a function, cannot compute and the only thing you can do with these unique mathematical objects is to use narrative. But, you could argue based on mathematics that seeking functions or algorithms is not so smart thing to do.

Yet if you argue that everything is computable and measurable, then I have to disagree with you.

Yes, unfortunately, everything about the pandemic has been highly politicized right from the start. And outside politics, you can see how the depressingly predictable dynamics unfolds: people get into arguments on- and offline, stake out positions, which then polarize and harden to the point where no evidence or reason has any chance of changing minds. — SophistiCat

If you would just erase away the US debate and just focus on what it has been in other Western countries (and somehow they wouldn't be influenced by the vitriolic US narrative), that would be a healthy start. Trump messed so much up (which was actually what many of his voters wanted him to do).

But yes, the problem then can become that people simply have separate narrative which are based on separate totally opposite data, which makes it hard to know just what the facts are. And that might be an objective for some. And political incentives create a base why there is no reason to try to reach an objective truth on the matter.

I learnt this following the debate around nuclear energy in Europe. The totally different realities could be seen from things like asking just how many people died in the Chernobyl accident. If the UN states that it caused 4 000 long term deaths and Greenpeace argues that it caused over 1 million deaths...