Are you talking about the idea of simplicity? — schopenhauer1

Yes. It's unwelcome because "we like our plumbing, heat, cars, roads, electrical grid.. etc. etc. endless blather. just think STEM fields. We like our movies, our popular music, etc. etc. We like our electronics.. we like our easy to obtain items from online or department stores".

I very much prefer plumbing, heat, hot water, electricity, and endless blather. Especially endless blather. We wouldn't be discussing this at a great distance without a big hunk of circuitry sitting in front of us. But...

It is still true that simplifying life, whenever, wherever, however possible would give us more time to live.

A truism which certain other philosophies bypass. But I won't say it. — schopenhauer1

A minimum of effort was required of hunter-gatherers before they could spend their remaining time. Some anthropologists think they had about 18 hours a day to cook, eat, sleep, and engage in social activities. 5 or 6 hours might have been required to get food, do maintenance on clothing, tools, or weapons (for hunting). Their now ancient remains say that they were tall and healthy. Compare that to our rat race.

Service jobs and maintaining the machines themselves... probably not. — schopenhauer1

I disagree. A lot of our time is spent maintaining complex institutions which do not exist for our benefit. Examples: insurance companies; banks; the military; personnel departments; Wall Street; companies advertising and marketing crap.

The CEO believes that a rising tide raises all ships.. Simplifying then makes no sense. — schopenhauer1

A rising tide raises the boats of the richest 10%; 90% of us do not have a boat to float, raise or sink. To the 10% who own and manage the economy, simplicity is anathema. To your CEO simplicity means THE END! FINIS! ALLES IST KAPUT! CURTAIN DOWN!

For the rest of us, the essential tasks of raising food, making clothing, and making (or maintaining) shelter still requires a relatively small amount of time. We donate vast amounts of time to the CEO and his ilk -- parasites all.

Most people find this idea no more appealing than antinatalism. We are about equally out of step with the rest of the world.

Work is required to maintain existence. Food has to be grown, clothing has to be made, shelter has to be built. A lot of work has to be done before we can move on to arts and crafts.

QUESTION: For most of our history, hunter-gatherers managed this task and didn't spend anywhere close to 40 hours a week doing it. Can mechanization and automation deliver the basic requirements and allow us the leisure of hunter gatherers?

Around 10,000 to 12,000 years ago there was a critical shift: We started domesticating plants and animals, doing agriculture, and living in large groups in one place. Some anthropologists think that humans were one of the animals that got domesticated by a brand new power elite. From there it has been down hill ever since--for the average non-elite human. Exploiting other humans has proved to be a reliable way of getting ahead in the world--not since the industrial revolution, but since the agricultural revolution of 10,000 years ago.

ANSWER: No. Meeting the basic needs of 8 billion people (or 2 or 3 billion) requires a level of social complexity which a hunter-gatherer level of existence can simply not provide. Aside from food, clothing, and shelter (the basics) society itself has to be reproduced, and that isn't something we can automate or mechanize. It's human work.

I don't think we all have to spend 40 hours a week 'reproducing and maintaining society', but life in the global society has to be simplified, especially for 1st world people. We need to stop doing a lot of the stuff we are doing that is aimed at keeping the economy revved up--advertising, marketing, promotion, selling, financing, upward mobility, ceaseless acquisition of new gadgets (be it a fancier watch or a bigger Tesla) and so on.

Simplify, simplify, simplify--both an end and a means.

As an illustration, take a 5 year old child, confine him to a cell for 50 years and let him out into the world on his 55th birthday. How experienced is this 55 year old? — TheMadFool

He'd be a crazy vegetable if he survived at all, long before 50 years.

Intelligence is derived from the physical brain, time (age); and experience. The structure of the physical brain changes materially, as does the content which is derived from the variable richness of experience. Development is an immensely complicated process which we try to capture through various means to provide a convenient metric--an IQ score or some other number.

I'm in favor of measurement, developing stats on intelligence, finding correlations between success in life (defined in various ways) and intelligence scores -- and more. We know, for instance, that children aged 0 to 5 years who hear a lot of 'good talk' (positive, affirming, complex) by their parents develop much better intellectual skills than children who hear much less of it.

But measurement and stats have upsides and downsides: It has to be done well across a good sized population to have meaningful results. Scores can become ceilings rather than floors. Child "A" has a lower score. The existence of the lower score (lower IQ, lower grades, lower test results...) will close many doors to future activities. Average scores ("meh") can be an impediment too, because high scores are so desired (by parents, college admissions, employers, etc.). The 'average' is underrated. Over the millennia, most people have been average and have managed just fine, even in difficult circumstances.

Years lived do not necessarily translate into experience. — TheMadFool

Of course not. But it takes years lived to get experience.

I find Gretta annoying and Donald Trump revoltingly loathsome. However, he became President and neither of us did. (I don't know--maybe you tried and failed; I didn't even try.) Apparently he had enough experience to fill the bill for the idiot bastards in the Republican Party.

No, a state is a monopoly on the use of violence. That's the textbook political science definition. — Pfhorrest

is not the use of (or threat of) coercion the primary means by which States prove their legitimacy?

Let's say Alaska declares all of itself to be an independent nation. The new state controls the southern coast from Kodiak and Anchorage down to Ketchikan. Most of the territory of Alaska is under the control of the local governments which predate the new nation.

After several years, Sovereign Alaska has yet to extend its control beyond the coastal areas. The people who run the nation are respectable, urbane, sophisticated people who compare favorably to governments elsewhere. Where they are in control, life is peaceable and the people there are happy. But still, they control very little of their territory.

Do you consider them legitimate at this point? Or would you expect them to use force to gain control of the remaining territory?

There are a number of national states, like Somalia, that are considered "failed states". Pretty much no one is in charge. Syria is bad, but Bashar Hafez al-Assad has largely retained control of the government and territory, albeit with savage violence. Syria is still Syria, more or less. Hasn't Assad proved his legitimacy? (He's a loathsome person, but that's another matter.). I don't like the Taliban, either. But, like it or not, they have gained control of Afghanistan. Since they don't seem to want to all drop dead, they have gained legitimacy.

The Republic of Congo has been described as a failed state. Seems like it to me. Various non-governmental actors have stepped in to do some of the things a state is supposed to do (above and beyond controlling territory). That proves the point: The 'State' is out of order. Kaput. Illegitimate.

Basically, if you have a low IQ, you're a child trapped in an adult body and vice versa for high IQ folks. — TheMadFool

Not so, because adults have more experience in life than children, even if they have a relatively low IQ. Low IQ isn't a severe mental impairment. Granted, it's not an advantage, but someone with an IQ of 85 or 90 is not mentally retarded. Children with IQs of 120 to 130 do not thereby have extensive experience. Life experience is an important aspect of intelligence. Brains without experience don't have much to say.

If you wanted to do the research, I am confident that you would find that the mean high school and college GPAs as well as standardized test scores and scores on intelligence tests are all much higher among, say, electrical engineers than among police officers or firefighters. — Michael Zwingli

It might be true, especially when you are comparing a group who may not need college level training, and another group who needs at least a BA, and maybe an MA.

If you collect the relevant statistics and display them in rank order, low scores to high scores across the board, there probably will be more high scores among engineers and doctors than among police officers and firemen. But... so what?

Training for even professional jobs is at least partly on-the-job. Just because your engineer has higher scores, doesn't mean that he or she would have the ability to function as a police officer, and just because the police officer doesn't have a BA, doesn't mean that he wouldn't have the wherewithal to earn one, even in engineering.

the Protestant work ethic — schopenhauer1

I do not know how much the Protestant Work Ethic figures into people's lives, these days. For Luther, work which contributed to the common good was as holy as the priesthood. For Calvin, salvation or damnation was predetermined by God. Prosperity could only be a sign, not a guarantee of salvation. Prosperity and poverty were not proof-positive of Grace, one way or the other.

Among the earlier generations of Lutherans, Calvinists, et al, these were vital issues. What percent of the population, do you think, actually know who John Calvin or Martin Luther were and what they taught?

Despite all that, most people do want to work -- they want the rewards of regular income; they want the belonging which having a steady job entails. They do not want to be an outsider without work.

Whether or not it has anything to do with protestantism, [don't Catholics work as hard as Lutherans?] most people seem to believe that working is a good thing. They do well to think positively about work, because not having an income means having a pretty bad life. There's nothing particularly Protestant about that.

I have worked at some pretty shitty jobs which I tolerated until better paying, more satisfying work was in hand. Work for work's sake is a dead end.

IF workers owned the means of production, and IF production were for need and not profit, then a 40 hour work week would be an anachronism. Unfortunately, workers do not own the means of production.

The number of hours worked in a week is one issue in people's quality of life (QOL). Equally important is how much people are paid per hour. Over the last 40 years, real wages have steadily declined for most people in the workforce. [The 'real wage' is pay minus inflation.] Falling wages mean a declining standard of living and a lower QOL. Many workers resort to second and third jobs to maintain what they consider a minimum QOL for their families.

A reduction in hours worked has to be accompanied at the same time by a significant increase in wages and benefits, else the worker is just further impoverished.

This can be achieved, but not without some major shifts in spending and taxation. The richer 9% and the wealthiest 1% will have to pay more in taxes, corporations will have to live with lower profits, and less will have to be spent on the military and other unnecessary expenditures. A greener economy (one where most workers are not obligated to own a car) is required.

I work as a pediatric nurse and helping people is one of the only things that I still find worthwhile. — Nicholas Mihaila

Your situation is MUCH better than I first thought. You find helping people worthwhile. That's solid rock! Were you so alienated, so mired in anomie, so pessimistic that "helping people" didn't seem worthwhile or meaningful, you'd be in a very dark hole indeed. But you are not.

We all have to put together a suite of workable beliefs that help us get through the day. Well, I suppose we don't have to, but having them makes life better.

BTW, there is indeed plenty of pointlessness and meaninglessness in the world. Try to avoid that kind of quicksand. Nobody is doomed if they stumble into it, but they are if they don't crawl out.

I see almost everything as completely pointless — Nicholas Mihaila

I make good money and can afford to do what I like, but there’s nothing I want. — Nicholas Mihaila

If everything is pointless and there is nothing you want, then why on earth are you working? Is working not pointless?

I don't know how you arrived 'where you are', but I don't think it is difficult to get there. One starts down a downhill path, and before long you are picking up speed, and in no time you have arrived at an impasse of pointlessness.

The point is: It has always been our human task to provide meaning; the universe doesn't provide it. Since you are working and making good money, you must be a fully functional person. Coming up with some positive thought is well within your operational capabilities. Step One is to stop staring into the abyss. There is nothing to get from it. Step Two is to wean yourself off the cycle of meaningless thinking.

The goal isn't some syrupy, candy-flavored fantasy. Rather, dry solid rock. A positive philosophy may not make you happy, but it will get you a lot farther than nihilism. There are whole libraries stocked with positive options.

Indeed.

Somebody -- don't remember who -- said we must stop talking about 2030, 2050, or 2100. No more 5 year plans. The movers and shakers need to be held to a time horizon of a year out, at the most. Better, "What are you doing RIGHT NOW?"

If their piles of money were burning, they wouldn't talk about future plans to reduce the fire. They would swing into action with big hoses IMMEDIATELY. No such urgency for the future of the planet.

Dilution is the perfect solution to pollution when we live next to an infinitely long river. Unfortunately for us, the finite river into which we dilute our waste is always upstream from us. And 9 times out of 10, we draw our drinking water from the insufficiently diluting river. Whatever it is, polyfluoroalkyl, polychlorinated biphenyls, or just plain chickenshit, "the diluting stream" is too short, to shallow, and too slow. So--the oceans are also finite--we can't dilute our way out of pollution.

There is no chance that we will stop polluting; it's a question of what kind of pollution we will produce. Maybe we should stop producing "forever chemicals like polyfluoroalkyl. Maybe we should stop losing so much nitrogen fertilizer through field runoff. (Stopping wasteful field runoff is not rocket science.)

There was at least an attempt. The Australian PM was obliged to stand up to a world audience and say climate change is something that has to be dealt with. — Wayfarer

With such a display of bold, fearless, undaunted courage, surely salvation is at hand!

Kindly forgive my sarcasm, if you will.

The first big climate conference was in Geneva in 1979. "It issued a declaration calling on the world's governments "to foresee and prevent potential man-made changes in climate that might be adverse to the well-being of humanity". 42 years later, there has been action -- however modest: Consciousness of global warming, modest efforts to reduce use of fossil fuels, a considerable effort in wind/solar power generation, and so on. Still, global monthly average concentrations of carbon dioxide have risen from around 339 parts per million in 1980 (averaged over the year) to 412 parts per million in 2020, an increase of more than 20%.

So it isn't that NOTHING has been done, but that not nearly enough has been done to change the dire outcomes before us. "Crisis" has not mobilized the huge range of actions that are required by the small population who own/direct the world economy.

the lion lays down with the lamb — James Riley

They may lay down together, but the lion will sleep a lot better than the lamb.

Your response gets an A+.

when I was watching documentaries in the TV about wild life where huge amount of pain, fear and starvation are present — richard77

TV isn't reality. On THIS OLD HOUSE work is done without fuck ups. One has to remember though, THIS OLD HOUSE is a produced show and is tightly edited. We just don't see the screwups.

Nature documentaries are also produced shows with plenty of editorial decision-making going into the final results. A film about birds which showed our feathered friends flitting about, pecking here and there, squawking and whistling, hopping along the branch, etc. for 90 minutes (or 5, maybe) would be quite tedious. The editors will look for footage which shows conflict, suffering, pain, hunger, brutal attacks, etc. -- because that stuff attracts our attention. And just so you know, there is a lot of nature footage available to draw from. You could make a documentary about tropical birds without ever leaving your house.

True enough, lions and wolves don't check to make sure the wildebeest or deer is 100% dead before they begin eating it. It may be pretty much alive. The only reason predators would have for a quick and total kill is self-protection. And, remember, they are hungry. Waiting for the rabbit's heart to stop is just not part of SOP.

I've eaten shellfish that was still alive. They were delicious, screams and all.

I've labored within the social service industry and have observed various kinds of problems. What I have not seen first hand is anything like the kind of behavior you ascribe to doctors -- "screwing portions of the population into submission to a system that exploits them, and if drugging you or driving you insane". Frankly, that just sounds like capitalism at work.

Are you thinking of doctors over-prescribing addictive pain killers? Very bad. The doctors, the pharmacy suppliers, the manufacturers--all sorts of people--were in it for the money--not much else.

"Wisdom" covers a lot of territory: prudence, cleverness, intelligence, shrewdness, sagacity, insight, understanding, knowledge, perception, sense, reason. Apparently wisdom is cumulative -- one gets more of it as one ages. (However, one 'wise saying' is that "wisdom does not necessarily increase with age". There are plenty of old fools who should know better (this observation is based on solid autobiographical information).

Some people are "wise" (in any of the above terms) much earlier than others. When I was 40 I had a boss who was 30 years old, and she was far wiser than I. However, even "wise ones" can make colossal errors and blunders which are decidedly not wise.

We deploy words like truth, beauty, wisdom, sublime, and a batch of similar words even though the precise meaning of the words are difficult to pin down.

What hasn't changed over the last several hundred (many thousand) years is basic humanness. Part of that is a variable ability to cope with stresses. Some people manage coping very well, others not. There are mental illnesses that apparently arise without excess stress, coped with or not, like schizophrenia and bipolar. Migraine and epilepsy have long histories. Intelligence varies now and has varied in the past.

I think we can assume that there has been a more or less constant level of mental dysfunction. It may not have been recognized (or recognized as something else), and may have been more or less debilitating.



I find most social media to be tedious and annoying. I don't like to have information 'pushed' at me; I don't like the chaotic sharing of significant, trivial, and often enough completely false and misleading information.

Social media applications are designed to engage -- and keep users engaged -- for extended periods of time. It supplies rewards; new posts generate just enough pleasure/stimulation to keep you on site. A "sort of addiction" develops. That is slightly true even for The Philosophy Forum. One continues to use static sites (like dictionary or encyclopedia sites) because they supply a certain kind of service, but they aren't "addicting" to 99.999% of the population.

What social media and advertising are particularly good at is arousing us, to a greater or lesser degree. The arousal doesn't have to be pleasant or positive -- it can involve irritation, cognitive dissonance, strong disagreement, disgust, embarrassment, anger... all sorts of reactions.

Some people become over stimulated, excessively aroused, and so on. Excessive arousal and over stimulation over a long period of time are unhealthy and very wearing. Outright false information (Donald Trump won the 2020 presidential election) is believed by some share o the social media audience and can lead to social conflict. People who believe Trump won, that Covid 19 was a fraud, that vaccinations are very dangerous, and so on may run into a lot of friction when they air their false beliefs.

People whose base line mental status isn't all that stable to start with can end up much worse off from engaging in too much social media.

Limiting global warming requires accuracy, precision, and honesty in reporting greenhouse gas emissions and reductions. There is a lot of inaccuracy, imprecision (or worse crudeness), and dishonesty in reporting national and industrial emissions. Honesty/dishonesty is a major problem, but in the context of this thread method, accuracy, precision, consistency, and so forth of measurement is critical.

One more reason for failing to limit global warming (regardless of what the reps at the COP26 say) is inaccuracy and imprecision in measurement. The result is a kind of climate-fraud, where officials claim accomplishments which simply do not exist. A report in the Washington Post noted that carbon from SE Asia palm oil production is underreported, thanks to both imprecision and willful errors. In the US, the Post reported that 25% of the gas in retail cooling systems is lost every year. Is that because of neglect, indifference, imprecision, inaccuracy, or what?

We will not be able to save ourselves if we continue sloppy manufacturing and agricultural operations. Without precise data we are wandering around in the hot dark.

Does what Lord Kelvin (aka William Thomson) had to say about physics apply to philosophy and your example of asking what good is utilitarianism?

There are various definitions of fascism, for instance; of democracy, of capitalism, of imperialism, of all sorts of things. What may be a good definition of fascism in 1925 (near the time the term was coined) may be less apt in 2021; same for democracy. Democracy in 1776 and 1976 may be dissimilar. Democracy in England may be quite unlike democracy in India. Greater precision doesn't seem to be the critical factor (though precision may be helpful).

if one is a molecular biologist wielding CRISPR, more precision is definitely a good thing.

"We will do [something] by 2030" is a dodge. What matters is the politicians commence to a) stop de-forestation IMMEDIATELY b) begin re-forestation IMMEDIATELY c) lower CO2 / methane emissions IMMEDIATELY d) build wind generation and solar facilities IMMEDIATELY e) start building up mass transit (rail freight, passengers) IMMEDIATELY.

Why all the "IMMEDIATELYs"? Because few if any politicians in office in 2021 will be in office in 2030. They can be held to account for what they do this year and next year, and the year after...

I feel / fear that what 2030, 2050, or 2070... deadlines mean is that "We'll worry about it then. In the meantime, we'll wait and see how fast things get worse. With any luck, things will get so bad that nothing can be done about it, and then we'll be doomed; but at least I'll be off the hook for making difficult decisions."

You have quite the hard-on for the United States. Since you are very well versed in our heinous history, perhaps you happen to know...

When did "colonialism" and "imperialism" shift from being at least a merely descriptive term to being a highly pejorative term. I suppose this shift in connotation happened in the early 20th century, particularly in connection with the British Empire. As their grip over their colonies loosened, the colonial residents were able reinterpret their experience.

It isn't clear to me exactly what foreign policy objects were being pursued in many instances. For instance, what did we have to gain in Ghana, Oman, Albania, Angola, Congo, Somalia, or Uganda and Kenya? How much effort and material were involved? How much effect did our involvement have?

Mentioning US activity in a place like Congo without mentioning the very thorough fucking-over which King Leopold II of Belgium administered in his personally owned estate of 2,344,000 km2 seems like overlooking a lot of history.

Selling opium in Laos? Old news. The US and UK were both busy selling opium to China in the 19th century. The fast yankee clippers operating out of Boston and New York were designed for the opium and tea trade. (see Warren Delano Jr. (1809–1898), a grandfather of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Chief of Operations of Russell & Company, whose business included the opium trade in Canton).

Given all these data points (additional are welcome), can we say unequivocally that the United States is an imperialist country? — Wheatley

From the viewpoint of people on the receiving end of the world's dominant powers, "imperialism" is at best not a good deal. For the people on the delivery side, it's not such a bad thing. Ever since Ur, there have been dominant and subservient people. That's real politics. The Romans dominated the Mediterranean world over several hundred years for their own benefit. Starting with Portugal, then Spain, England, France, Netherlands, Russia, et al, exploration of the globe by Europeans quickly morphed into imperialism.

Exploration turned into imperialism because it could, and because there were all sorts of benefits to be gained -- wealth, principally. Who doesn't like accumulating wealth? We do, and if the peasants from whom it is accumulated don't like it, they learn to live with it.

I would highly recommend visiting a psychologist - NOT a psychiatrist — I like sushi

Good advice. If a patient needs psychiatric help, the psychologist will refer him or her on to a psychiatrist. I've seen a number of psychiatrists over the years; their role is mostly medical management of patients with moderate to severe conditions. As an empathetic pair of ears, most psychiatrists suck -- partly because they usually don't have time (thanks to insurance companies) to give patients much personal attention.

It's a rare psychiatric practice that schedules 30 to 45 minutes per visit, and those are usually for patients with major mental illnesses, like schizophrenia, bi-polar, psychosis, etc.

sounds a lot like what they classify as hypomania — I like sushi

That's quite plausible, provided that what @Yohan is hearing are intrusive hallucinations and not just annoying mental chatter (which a lot of us hear a good share of the time).

I feel cut off and alienated from nature and the world at large and from myself. — Yohan

Feelings of alienation are not signs of insanity. A lot of us live in circumstances which are very alienating. Alienation is unhealthy, but a psychiatrist can't cure it. You have to find meaning and purpose in your life.

When I sleep, I have crazy dreams — Yohan

Everybody has crazy dreams.

I feel like most of my thoughts are subconscious. — Yohan

Your thoughts come from the unconscious, a place to which consciousness has little access.

My mind is constantly moving and agitated. ... Some voices say things to me like, "you are an awful person." while other voices say megalomaniacal things to me which I am too shy to share. — Yohan

This is the the sort of thing that you should see a psychiatrist about. How dangerous do these voices get? Do they tell you to do something harmful? I can't tell for sure from your description, but it sounds like you are having aural hallucinations, which is not normal. "Hallucinations" are different than mental chatter, which can be bothersome in itself, but which usually is not a sign o anything serious.

Knowing you are crazy just means you know you are crazy (to use your terminology). Some people have symptoms of mental illness which are very unpleasant, and they very much desire to get better. Some people can not identify the irrationality of their mental state on their own. A very depressed person may not recognize that they are depressed.

The proof that you are not stark raving mad (to use the highly technical medical term) is your OP. You were able to write a sensible description of how you feel. But you should still get evaluated at a mental health clinic. You should, ESPECIALLY if what you experience becomes debilitating or more frightening to you.

Not a very helpful tip: Don't know where you live, but it can be difficult to locate a clinic with openings in the near future. So, start looking before you are in crisis.

I like Bernie; I voted for him. Neither Senator Sanders nor any other single person can effect systemic change by themselves. That's is just the fact of the matter. Capitalism is an interlocking global system worth mega trillions and protected by armed forces. You think you know how to disestablish capitalism? Tell us.

I saw a news program quite a few years ago in which Miami's ground water upwelling was just beginning to be a visible problem--little pools of water rising in yards. They asked real estate agents what they said to prospective buyers. "Nothing." Just guessing, they probably have to deal with it more frankly now.

I'm 75; I don't have a lot of water and climate worries, provided I don't live too much longer. I wonder what plans informed adolescents and young adults are making in light of the ongoing crises which they will have to live with.

William Lane Craig will not avail. Nor prevail. He'll derail in the loathsome vale. He'll suffer much travail which no one will curtail. He'll vomit in a pail. I'll spare us all detail.

"And time itself The magic length of God ." 1966 Leonard Cohen

God is alive, Magic is Afoot Recited by Leonard Cohen



God is alive, Magic is Afoot sung by Buffy St. Marie

I like Bernie, but it's not a "one man problem" -- it is a big complex systemic problem.

Shankar Vedantam, the host of the public radio program, Hidden Brain, put it this way: We face an existential threat from survive climate change. Compared to WWII, are we at D Day, or are we at Dunkirk?

Dunkirk! Like the British Expeditionary Force, many localities around the world (including places in the US) will have to retreat to survive. D Day--the long-awaited massive counter offensive against Hitler's western front--isn't in the offing. Global sea level rise (between 3 feet and 10 feet, depending on the model, and whether its the middle case or worse case) is baked in -- even if we stopped producing CO2 right now.

There aren't any great alternatives; there are no over-looked wonderful solutions.

I'm pessimistic about climate change -- not a fatalist. Too bad we didn't act sooner, too bad things are going to get worse, regardless. But we can, we will adapt to the consequences of bad decisions. I don't like it, we could have done better, but here we are.

What you say about "our" political leaders [sic] is true enough, but you don't think the political system is actually left unattended, so that We The People would ever be able to elect a Congress that would liquidate the fossil fuel and other oppressive corporations... do you?

As Uncle Karl said, "The government is a committee to organize the affairs of business." We The People are SOL.

We could have a revolution, of course, and just do away with capitalism. There are reasons why that hasn't happened and isn't going to happen. In order to have a revolution, a popular political movement is required to inform, educate, and organize We The People. Such organizations have appeared. Then what happened? They were vigorously attacked and crushed--like the labor movement in the late 19th and early 20th centuries; the Socialist Party (first third of the 20th century); the Communist Party; and anyone to the left of Attila the Hun (the McCarthy witch-hunt); and the labor movement again in the latter part of the 20th century.

Americans are quite literally schooled to accept the lies of big business. It takes heroic efforts to break through the smoke screen -- literally that, in countering the denials of the tobacco companies in the 1960s and forward (and still not finished).

Careful where you aim your spit, please.

Hold on Olivier5. The stupid crass people and their kids never had a say in the future at any critical stage. The boards of directors of banks, mining companies, power generating companies, auto companies, petroleum companies, etc. are the small exclusive group of people who made the major decisions at critical stages over the last 150 years. Individuals like Senators Mnuchin and Sinema are in a vastly more powerful position than 99% of the population to decide whether we have a strong effort to lower CO2 or not.

What is stupid and crass is sizing up the overwhelming majority of people who had no say about past or future energy policy and calling them stupid and crass.

On the other hand, I agree with you that climate pessimism makes more sense than climate optimism.

In the case of major technological change, Parkinson's law isn't the problem (but it's an otherwise sound principle).

1) Once a technology is created, it takes time for public acceptance. Wind-generation first met with opposition (owing to its unfamiliarity). Opposition in the upper midwest, for instance, is uncommon 25 years on.

2) Production of new technologies takes time to build up and perfect. Worker require training and supply chains need to be created (or repaired--currently).

3) Infrastructure has to be put into place -- another major operation. Wind generation in the narrow band running from North Dakota to west Texas doesn't work unless the transmission lines are in place. Transmission lines (high voltage wires on towers) are very strongly resisted by affected populations.

4) The end user of new technology (the all-electric home or factory for example) require time and financing to be in place. 90% of Minnesotans, for example, heat and cook with natural gas. Transitioning from gas to electricity is another major undertaking.

That's why it takes more time than one might think. And wind generation is just one set of technologies. Solar, electricity-driven transportation for freight, mass transit, energy-use upgrades in housing and business buildings, and so on also require time. We have hardly begun.

Mass addiction to fossil fuel products by the larger public — FrankGSterleJr

The larger public has never had much say in how major new technologies will be deployed. "The People" were not crying out for crude oil. It was people like John D. Rockefeller who decided that his fortune could be made in petroleum. It wasn't the general public who decided that individual cars were going to be the only way to get around. You can thank GM, Ford, et al. They made the decision that America run on cars.

The public has basic needs they have to meet, and corporations provide it, quite often on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.

It isn't the public that is addicted to fossil fuels, it is major corporations.

Here's an interesting fact: There are about 1.4 BILLION cars on the world's roads. Producing and fueling these billion+ autos was / is a major contributor to global warming. The only area we MIGHT get rid of vehicles in the next 10 years is Antarctica (but don't hold your breath).

1). Asia: 518 million vehicles on the road -- 0.14 vehicles per capita
2). Europe: 419 million vehicles -- 0.52 vehicles per capita
3). North America: 350 million vehicles -- 0.71 vehicles per capita
4). South America: 83 million vehicles -- 0.22 vehicles per capita
5). Middle East: 49 million vehicles -- 0.18 vehicles per capita
6). Africa: 26 million vehicles -- 0.05 vehicles per capita
7). Antarctica: about 50 vehicles

There just HAS to be a better idea than replacing 1.4 billion cars powered by internal combustion engines with 1.4 billion cars powered by wind, solar, nuclear, and hydro. We can not conger up 1.4 billion cars and the means to power them electrically without causing further damage to an already ailing world. It isn't the case that what's good for Tesla is good for the world. We used to think that what was good for GM was good for the USA.

Part of @Unenlightened's "poorer and learn to live simple and consume little" will be doing without a car, electric or combusted. Therefore, mass transit or walk. Americans especially find the idea of using mass transit every day bizarre and/or distasteful. We will have to get over that. No flying around for meetings, or lounging on the beach, either.

it's just going to be brutal beyond words — Manuel

There's nothing else I can see that can be done — Manuel

Yes, both.

I am quite pessimistic regarding the chances of success in controlling (let alone reducing) climate warming. The major CO2 / methane / other GH gas producers have too much investment sunk in automobiles, coal-generated electricity, petroleum, meat-production agriculture, plastics, and so forth to make either any changes or rapid changes. It's too late for slow changes.

It is the case that a world economy COULD BE ORGANIZED around renewable energy production, mass transit, sustainable food, fibre, housing production, and so forth, but anything resembling a fast transition (like, by 2035) would produce wrenching, social-shredding dislocations throughout the world. If it takes 50 years (a more manageable period for massive global change) we will end up far overshooting the deadline when helpful changes could be made. We may have already completed that most unhelpful achievement.

Expect to become poorer and learn to live simple and consume little. — unenlightened

This is a critical part of the solution about which one hears almost nothing. The economic status quo has to give way to economic contraction (in terms of volumes produced and consumed, as well as the kinds of materials). The immediate effect of contraction will be economic depression, probably severe and long, until a new, reduced equilibrium is reached. Given resource redistribution, retraction could be achieved quite sustainably and humanely. Resource redistribution will of course be resisted, as in "over my dead body".

I think the rich countries are simply going to have to open their borders for displaced persons and use their wealth to accommodate them. That is, no status quo anywhere is safe or untouchable. — tim wood

Climate-displacement is going to be a touchstone for all kinds of disruption, everywhere.

the billionaires who are actually humanitarian may be enough to counterbalance the stulted nature of the government in this area. — I like sushi

Actually humanitarian billionaires? Dream on.