A great number of people are framed as ‘Climate Change Deniers’ when in fact they do not deny that the climate is changing, nor that humans have an effect on the climate, but they do question the extent of the impact humans have. This is a reasonable position to have. — I like sushi

No, it isn't. It's an ignorant position. It's a position which ignores the scientific consensus, decades of research, and overwhelming evidence available at a keystroke.

I’d say those are all relevant problems pertaining to his existential situation. I’d prioritize those questions over whether he believes abortion is a human right.

Some problems are more important than others. Not every problem is an existential one.

For those that are existential— than yes, they’re equally important. Nuclear weapons and climate change are existential — hence, they’re more important than others. Is there ONE problem or ONE cause? No, not always. But so what? My question is to provoke thought about the problems we face.

One need not hope in order to undertake, nor succeed in order to persevere.
-- William I, Prince of Orange — Olivier5

:up:

I find those quibbling over whether the term “existential threat” really applies to climate change rather amusing. Especially when it’s become clear, over and over again, that projections have been far too optimistic. The latest about the Greenland ice melt is one example.

There are solutions to climate change. Many of them are under way. Those who believe it’s hopeless are entitled to think so — they may be right. But we can’t act on that basis.

We should recognize that if global warming is an automatic consequence of capitalism, we might as well say goodbye to each other. I would like to overcome capitalism, but it’s not in the relevant time scale. Global warming basically has to be taken care of within the framework of existing institutions, modifying them as necessary. That’s the problem we face.

When we turn to human nature, the first thing to remember is that we know essentially nothing about it. It’s what I work on all the time. There’s a few small areas where there’s some understanding of cognitive human nature and very little about the rest. It’s all surmise.

If it is true that human nature is incapable of dealing with problems developing over a longer term, if that’s a fact about the way humans are structured and organized, we can, again, say goodbye to one another. So let’s assume it’s not the case.

Then we work within a set of parameters. The fundamental institutions are not going to change in time. Human nature allows the possibility of thinking about what’s going to happen in a couple of decades, even centuries. Assume all that.

Then we turn to solutions. And there are solutions within that set of assumptions. So let’s proceed and work on them. If those assumptions happen to be wrong, tough for the human species. It’s what we have. — Noam Chomsky

I think that sums it up better than I can.

About 30% of most issues is not "some". — Benkei

?

What would you call it?

It’s a lot — the Fed buys a lot of bonds. Maybe that’s what you’re getting at. The point I was making is that it’s one part of the overall debt — an important part, but not even the majority.

The whole point is that CPI is not an adequate measure when asset inflation has real life consequences for consumers with regards to housing and pensions. That inflation existed well before covid and Ukraine so really had nothing to do with either of them. — Benkei

I can’t speak for Holland, but in the US the housing market really took off around the start of COVID. I know this well only because it corresponded to when my wife and I started looking for a house. COVID changed a lot of behavior — but it wasn’t only that. It was also the Fed lowering rates to almost zero. That played a huge role — no denying it.

Maybe I have missed your point. If your main argument is that CPI doesn’t tell the whole story about inflation, I agree.

So you've just made Friedman's case that printing money causes inflation. It indirectly funds government expenditure (increased demand) because banks always have a buyer for bonds which governmental demand cannot be answered in a near full production environment. — Benkei

They buy some bonds. The Fed has been doing so for decades. During QE in 2009, they were doing it on steroids. People screamed of inflationary effects— and the CPI stayed roughly the same. It did, however, have effects on markets.

As I said before— I’m not saying that increasing the money supply has no effect on inflation. But it’s much more contained to the three main asset classes than to the economy as a whole.

What’s changed this time around is the fiscal stimulus and COVID programs put into place. And COVID itself, of course.

That's not just "some" inflation, that's a huge chunk of people's disposable income and should figure strongly in any inflation figures but usually doesn't — Benkei

Yes, housing is certainly affected by low interest rates. They’re one of the asset classes I mentioned. Having been in the market for the last two years I can tell you it’s not only interest rates, however. COVID played a large role in behavior as well.

That has nothing to do with covid and Ukraine — Benkei

It has a lot to do with COVID. It greatly changed supply and demand.

True, it has nothing to do with Ukraine — I never claimed otherwise.

Energy price and food inflation, that's Ukraine. Broken supply chains, that's covid. — Benkei

COVID factors into both— but Ukraine added to the problems, yes.

In any case, energy prices have a huge effect on all aspects of the economy, from plastics to cars to shipping costs. And those increases have led the charge. They haven’t led the charge because of the Fed. That’s the point.

Right. The Trump Party, where loyalty to the leader must be pledged and demonstrated, where even minimal descent will be punished, where there is no State only the whims and desires of Trump is a much better option. — Fooloso4

:fire:

It really is farcical isn’t it? The biggest Statist here claims to hate the state (now that Biden is president, of course).

Don’t look for principles or consistency. At the heart of it all is simple sociopathy.

Seriously, I don't get this type of reasoning, it's like saying to someone you will lose most of your limbs, your eyes, your stomach etc, but don't be alarmed we can keep you alive just fine by hooking you up to this machine for the rest of your life. — ChatteringMonkey

Yes indeed. :100:

We need to be alarmed. — Olivier5

Very alarmed.

Anyone who isn't an idiot understands why they stormed the Capitol. They were trying to stop the Electoral College vote. — Michael

Where’s the evidence? Besides them explicitly saying it, I mean. Who are we to look into the hearts and souls of these people?

We must be NUANCED. Except when it comes to BLM riots — screw those people.

I suppose if they had found Pence, there was a chance they’d have a reasonable, rational conversation with him, laying out their grievances. Can we REALLY say for sure?

Repeat after me: there was no insurrection. The people there were not there because the votes from a free election were being certified —they were there because the election was STOLEN, as told by the Great One. They were defending democracy, peacefully.

:starstruck:

Do you think they were there for selfies with Pence? — Fooloso4

They were there on a tour. They just forgot the visiting hours. Honest mistake.

Many were deleted. A lot of really bizarre stuff, claiming he’s God, etc. Was warned but kept at it. Could be a mental health issue (and I’m not saying this jokingly).

Anyway — it was clear cut.

Love to watch Trumpists try to square the circle in service of their delusions. :starstruck:

Insurrection to overthrow a free election? Nah, nothing but a little, tiny riot. Actually, not even a riot — it was a field trip that went wrong. Actually, not even that wrong — just some minor trespassing. Actually not even that, since technically we the people own that place.

So basically it was a tour. What’s everyone getting so upset about?

get the general idea, printing money →
→
inflation, but I don't understand the actual mechanism so to speak - — Agent Smith

Monetary policy — the actions of the federal reserve — inflate asset classes like stocks and housing. Currently, it accounts for some inflation— some.

Mostly inflation is the result of COVID and the war in Ukraine. People who want to reduce it all to “printing money” have read too much Milton Friedman, and are unwittingly giving cover to austerity policies, which will hurt mostly the working classes. But it’s not that simple.

The mechanism involved is this:

The treasury issues debt to fill the gap between expenditure and revenue — the deficit. That debt can be bought by individuals, companies, institutions, foreign countries, and even parts of the government itself. We run deficits every year— This is why we have a high national debt, which is the total of all deficits.

The federal reserve owns some of that debt — but only some. When they buy treasuries, they buy them from institutions. With what money? Mostly through “printing” money — in todays world, by adding digits to an account — which only they have the power to do.

The institutions are banks, mostly. If these banks hold more cash than bonds, they tend to lend out money and for better interest rates. More companies and individuals borrow, and you have more spending. This simulates the economy, in theory.

Banned @Yozhura for incoherent, delusional, low quality posts.

Are you OK buddy?

I really can’t make heads or tails of any of this either.

A tiny insurrection. No big deal. After all, they were “burning down cities” all summer leading up to this.

Election was stolen — can’t prove it yet, and all evidence is to the contrary, but we’ll go on believing it. The deep state and whatnot…

Always good to have at least one delusional Trumpist spouting nonsense. Helps to identify the crap they’re being fed.

“Russia interfered in the 2016 election” (turns out it was true, but not enough to swing the election — as I was saying from the beginning)

=

Literal insurrection at the Capitol building, threatening to hang people, claiming the election was stolen by mass voter fraud…

Yeah, it’s a wash. Seems like a fair and balanced assessment to me.

There is no "key problem" to address first, second third... — Bitter Crank

Of course there is. Unless we want to claim all problems are the same— or that problems don’t exist. But that’s absurd.

I’d say any issue that’s potentially existential— nuclear weapon proliferation, for example — is more urgent and deserves more attention than others that are also important but not existential (say abortion rights).

we are stuck with problems that are nigh unto insoluble. — Bitter Crank

I don’t think that’s close to true. Plenty of solutions. But if you’re correct— then we might as well “wave goodbye to each other,” as Chomsky would say. Either way I’m fighting to the end — for no other reason than “why not?”

I would argue there there is no experience for Heidegger that is simply unconscious , automatic , habitual. — Joshs

Seems at odds with almost everything I’ve read of Heidegger, but okay,

Look at the effort to defend racist, fascist Trump. :starstruck:

Gotta love those fascist tears.

As someone who has written a lot here about Heidegger’s questioning of the ‘is’, isn’t your notion of non-judgmental awareness part of what Heidegger was critiquing? Isn’t all experience evaluative? Can there be such a thing as a neutral, passive subject of awareness, a pure , empty self-reflexivity? — Joshs

I'd love it if there were some link, but I see very little in Heidegger in terms of discussing meditation.

I wouldn't say all experience is evaluative -- in fact, most isn't. Most is unconscious, automatic, habitual, etc. Most ready-to-hand activities aren't evaluative. We may be able to do a little evaluation afterward, but then we'd be in a present-at-hand mode of being. At least that's what I think Heidegger would say.

My own opinion is that meditation is indeed a present-at-hand type experience, without necessarily involving any ideas about "substance," which crept in fairly early in the history of Western thought. I would say Parmenides and Heraclitus were seeing similar things as the Buddha: "is-ness." It changes/becomes, it stays the same, it is differentiated in trillions of ways, etc. The ancient meaning of phusis and logos and noein and aletheia, for example, suggest this -- decades before idea and ousia came to dominate.

Whether or not these early thinkers grasped the importance of time (as temporality) is another matter.

If only one thing exists, then we are “it.” We ourselves literally are made in the image, or Isness, of God. But we don’t experience ourselves that way. We are immersed in the world. We live in a steady stream of touch, taste, smell, sight, hearing, emotion, and thoughts, day in, day out. How can we experience the Isness which we are? Or, rather, is us? By quieting the stream and searching within. Meditation. Sitting in a quiet room. But the stream goes on. I relive experiences and thoughts of the day. But if I sit long enough, the stream flows more slowly. If the stream stops, you may experience yourself as Isness itself, as “Uncreated Light”—or so they say. Sadly, I don’t speak from experience. — Art48

It's difficult but not impossible -- just keep at it. Eventually you do reach a state where anything that
arises (to use the lingo) -- thoughts, images, sounds, sensations, or any phenomena whatsoever -- just becomes something to be aware of, without reacting to or judging.

When you get good at that, it feels like a rather odd place to be, and you start experiencing first-hand all the talk of "oneness" and "unity." I like to think of it as "being," -- what you called "is-ness."

I think of it as an exercise. It's good for me. It's much harder than yoga or running or lifting weights. Which is why I rarely do it!

But anyway -- I don't see how meditation has much to do with quantum mechanics. A lot has been said about QM and meditation, but so much of it strikes me as woo-woo.

The speech was rather tame compared to the lunacy of the delusional right-wing nuts out there. For those that didn't read it or listen to it, here are some highlights:

Too much of what’s happening in our country today is not normal. Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our Republic.

Now, I want to be very clear, very clear up front. Not every Republican, not even the majority of Republicans, are MAGA Republicans. Not every Republican embraces their extreme ideology. I know, because I’ve been able to work with these mainstream Republicans.

But there’s no question that the Republican Party today is dominated, driven and intimidated by Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans. And that is a threat to this country.

I see nothing inaccurate here.

These are hard things, but I’m an American president, not a president of red America or blue America, but of all America. And I believe it’s my duty, my duty to level with you, to tell the truth no matter how difficult, no matter how painful.

And here, in my view, is what is true: MAGA Republicans do not respect the Constitution. They do not believe in the rule of law. They do not recognize the will of the people. They refuse to accept the results of a free election, and they’re working right now as I speak in state after state to give power to decide elections in America to partisans and cronies, empowering election deniers to undermine democracy itself.

Ask yourselves: Are they or are they not saying the election was "stolen"?

Yeah, they are. Biden's being too kind by saying "not even the majority." The polls indicate it is indeed a majority who believe the election lie.

They look at the mob that stormed the United States Capitol on Jan. 6, brutally attacking law enforcement, not as insurrectionists who placed a dagger at the throat of our democracy, but they look at them as patriots. And they see their MAGA failure to stop a peaceful transfer of power after the 2020 election as preparation for the 2022 and 2024 elections.

They tried everything last time to nullify the votes of 81 million people. This time, they’re determined to succeed in thwarting the will of the people. That’s why respected conservatives like Federal Circuit Court Judge Michael Luttig has called Trump and the extreme MAGA Republicans “a clear and present danger” to our democracy.

Yep.

We, the people, will not let anyone or anything tear us apart. Today, there are dangers around us we cannot allow to prevail. We hear — you’ve heard it, more and more talk about violence as an acceptable political tool in this country. It’s not. It can never be an acceptable tool. So, I want to say this plain and simple: There is no place for political violence in America, period, none, ever.

Spoken like a true dictator! lol

I'm not even a Biden fan -- but let's at least be honest about things.

I believe that the majority of the harms that death visits on a person are post-mortem. Why? Because the ante-mortem harms seem relatively insignificant compared to the harmfulness of death. — Bartricks

If we think of death as an event, then it's the point where life is over (where one goes from "here" to "no longer here," as you put it). That event may be harmful (here I think "painful" or involving suffering) or even defined as harmful regardless of whether there's suffering (as it appears you do). But it's still an event, and once it's occurred I don't see how anything afterward (post-mortem) can be spoken of as "harmful." Pain, suffering, joy, pleasure, are all phenomena that apply to the living.

What you're doing in the OP is arguing that death itself, as an event, is more harmful than anything life can bring. But you never discuss "post-mortem" harms -- and I think for good reason: namely, because it's nonsensical. I cite the following:

And the death penalty is a stiffer penalty than life imprisonment - or at least, we generally consider it to be - even though life imprisonment is a ilfe of discomfort. — Bartricks

Here arguing that death is worse than living even a miserable life in prison.

Yet death is harmful to a person even when it deprives them of nothing worth having, — Bartricks

Same as above.

So, the intrinsic value of life is clearly eclipsed by the disvalue of the discomfort. Yet if such a life is up and running already, then one should keep it going for as long as possible. That makes no real sense unless death itself exposes the person who undergoes it to new and worse harms than those this life is exposing them to. — Bartricks

Two things here.

(1) The assumption that you make is that one should go on living "for as long as possible" is begging the question. Some people really would rather die than go on living. So it's true that IF everyone wanted to go on living no matter what life threw at them, then it makes sense that death must be far worse than even the worst of life. But that's simply not the case.

(2) Even if it were the case, you're still only speaking of an event: death. So all you've done, even assuming (1) is correct, is shown that death -- as an event -- is worse than any kind of suffering in life.

With the stipulation in place that talk of an existence after death is for another time, and that death is just when a person is "no longer here," how can we possibly discuss harms inflicted "post-mortem"? What does that mean unless we assume an afterlife of some time? How can the dead be harmed?

Again, all you're doing -- in my view -- is saying that death itself is a greater harm than going on living. That's arguable. So why add anything about the harmfulness being inflicted "post-mortem"?

I'm afraid this is essentially incoherent, at least without further explanation.

Imagine voting for and endlessly defending Donald Trump and then blathering about dictators. :lol:

From where I'm sitting, the most important "problem" facing humanity is a lack of inner awareness. — Bret Bernhoft

Maybe. If those in power were a little more aware, perhaps then they wouldn’t make such short-sighted, greedy, anti-social decisions. In that case I can see it. But we can’t all be meditators, I guess.

Anyway — even with awareness, ideology still lurks. One can be an aware Christian or Buddhist or capitalist. Doesn’t necessarily change that belief system and corresponding actions. Culture and education can help, but that’s a long term solution.

When you speak of Zeus and Shiva, they are images of what greater reality may exist. — Jack Cummins

That's an interpretation, sure. But then "greater reality" is really what you're discussing, no? Why use "God" or "Shiva" or "Blue Unicorn" and argue about whether "it" exists, knowing the connotations? Just inquire about a greater reality, and we can talk about what that means and whether it exists.

The only thing which has to be remembered is that even science is models, and like the images arising in religious perspectives we are still left with models and representations as approximations. — Jack Cummins

We're left with human beings, with human brains and senses and perspectives, yes. But that doesn't make every perspective equally true or equally valid. It doesn't mean we have to take every claim seriously. I could claim right now that there's a god called Yojimbo, with 5 eyes and 7 arms, who created the world and controls every thought we have. Should we argue about whether or not it exists?

We give extra attention to stories and myths we were raised with. That's understandable, but there's little need to continue with it straight to the grave. There are others ways -- in my view better -- to spend our time. For example, better to inquire about the human being itself, the being interpreting the world in various ways -- the being that says it's created by this or that god, or is infinite, or material, or natural, or whatever.

If that's what we mean when we're arguing about "God," fine. But I'd still say that there's so much baggage associated with the word ("God") it leads to unnecessary confusion.

My own mother died last September and was extremely religious right until the end, although she was so extremely afraid to die. — Jack Cummins

Most of my friends in real life are theists. — Jack Cummins

I was often surrounded by African Christians and they really were inclined to preach. — Jack Cummins

Exactly...so it's no wonder you care so much about the issue. Hard not to when you're surrounded by people who think alike.

I have to admit that it does still niggle in the back of mind as one of the toughest questions. — Jack Cummins

Do you also consider the existence of Zeus or Hormaz or Shiva as one of the toughest?

I think you see my point. The reason this question is especially relevant to you— understandably — is because you have been raised in the Christian faith and live in a predominantly Christian culture.

I don't think we should argue about it one way or the other, any more than we should be spending our time arguing about the existence of Zeus and Hormaz.

We have enough resources and wealth to provide for everyone. We choose not to.

Why? Because those who benefit from massive wealth inequality don’t want it. Then the millions they’ve brainwashed over decades rise to defend their positions.

What anyone who complains about government leaves out is their commitment to private tyranny and plutocracy.

No reason why we can’t have a new bill of rights tomorrow — except for the above.

Oddly enough, I own it. Right there on my bookshelf. I guess it’s been a while…

Appreciate it.

Hear hear. :clap:

Where is the Chomsky quote from?

So it looks like sea level will rise by 10 inches, inevitably.

https://apnews.com/article/science-oceans-glaciers-greenland-climate-and-environment-9cd7662658ebbeaba05682352de8aa87

This summer has made it even more obvious that we’re heading for disaster— and that much of it is already locked in from the last 30 years of inaction.

Maybe the real reason is that using the idea of classes, we can explain too much. — Art48

I tend to agree with this. It’s taboo. Race is also taboo, but in terms of explanatory power I think class is higher.

The GP class of the Gullible/Poor – the gullible “cognitively challenged” who think with their emotions rather than their mind. If religious, they are gullible enough to believe stories such as Adam and Eve, and the Great Flood actually happened. — Art48

I don’t think describing things this way is useful…or accurate.

And where do the opinions of the GP come from? From media (TV, news shows, the Internet). And who controls much media content? The WG. In fact, one popular “news” outlet in particular is, in all but name, the WG’s official Ministry of Truth — Art48

This is important. I recommend Chomsky’s Manufacturing Consent, if you haven’t read it already.

A second rate philosopher as compared to first rates such as Kant, Hegel, Kierkegaard and Heidegger is still pretty good compared to a tenth rate. — Janus

Can’t argue with that list. I’ve been meaning to read Hegel. Seems daunting but probably isn’t once one starts.

You mention the peoples' "consumption habits": it is my opinion that any government that threatens to diminish or impact those in any significant way will not last long. I think people generally want governments to "fix this global warming issue" without impacting on their accustomed lifestyles, — Janus

That’s definitely an issue— and it should be minimized if possible — but the government does all kinds of things that cause pain. Look at what the Fed is doing now. It may not be popular, but if it’s considered necessary (as this is), they should go ahead with it. The lockdowns were another example.

Either way the people are going to suffer. Best to explain it to them that this transition is necessary and inevitable, and that the alternative is far worse for themselves, their kids and grandkids. I don’t think people are as addicted to meat and cars as much as we think. If we give more options and stop brainwashing people through advertising and media propaganda, we wouldn’t be in this situation to begin with.

What about the underdeveloped countries: how are they going to be "brought out of poverty" if decarbonization is inevitably going to cause a decline in general prosperity, and the more so, the more quickly it is brought about? — Janus

That’s a hard problem. I’ve seen some proposals— but first and foremost the US has to lead the way, along with other major emitters. They should also help developing countries develop sustainable practices.

:up:

Why do you seek to interpret everything through the lens of a second-rate philosopher? — Janus

I think that’s a bit harsh. I think there’s plenty to learn from Schopenhauer, and he’s an excellent writer — very clear. I also think his interpretation of Kant is a good one. Although he does take some liberties…

:up: