A new report on the 2020 election, written by a group of eight prominent Republicans, struck a familiar chord: A review of more than 60 court challenges from six battleground states found no evidence that the election was stolen from former President Donald J. Trump.

The 72-page report released last Thursday urged Mr. Trump’s supporters to stop propagating election falsehoods that continue to smolder ahead of the midterms.

The report examined Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, battleground states that were all won by Joseph R. Biden Jr.

“There is absolutely no evidence of fraud in the 2020 presidential election on the magnitude necessary to shift the result in any state, let alone the nation as a whole,” the report said. “We urge our fellow conservatives to cease obsessing over the results of the 2020 election, and to focus instead on presenting candidates and ideas that offer a positive vision for overcoming our current difficulties and bringing greater peace, prosperity and liberty to our nation.”

What a shocker!

Yet another good summary from the New York Times’ Krugman:

There’s an obvious parallel between the politics of green energy and the politics of Covid-19. Many people chafed at the restrictions imposed to limit the pandemic’s spread; even mask requirements involve a bit of inconvenience. But vaccination seemed to offer a win-win solution, letting Americans protect themselves as well as others. Who could possibly object?

The answer was, much of the G.O.P. Vaccination became and remains an intensely partisan issue, with deadly consequences: Death rates since vaccines became widely available have been far higher in strongly Republican areas than in Democratic areas.

The fact is that one of America’s two major political parties appears to be viscerally opposed to any policy that seems to serve the public good. Overwhelming scientific consensus in favor of such policies doesn’t help — if anything, it hurts, because the modern G.O.P. is hostile to science and scientists.
And that hostility, rather than the personal quirks of one small-state senator, is the fundamental reason we appear set to do nothing while the planet burns.

And from the UN:

“Humanity faces ‘collective suicide’ over climate crisis, warns UN chief“

Running out of precious metals to make phones doesn't affect the climate. — Tate

Yes it does.

It’s not just cell phones. If we delete the supply of metals, we’re in serious trouble. Especially when do much green technology rests on these commodities.

That’s exactly the one I was talking about here. Terrifying.

Some people want to reproduce, others don't. There is no one rule or one set of acceptable conditions that should govern everyone's decision as to whether or not to procreate. It's self-righteous nonsense to imagine there could be — Janus

:clap:

None of these changes has nearly the impact that federal action would. But smaller changes can still add up — and even foster broader changes. Consider the vehicle market: By mandating electric vehicles, California and other states will lead automakers to build many more of them, likely spurring innovations and economies of scale that will reduce costs for everybody and thereby increase their use around the country.

It’s a reminder that climate change is one of those issues on which activists may be able to make more progress by focusing on grass-roots organizing than top-down change from Washington, especially in the current era of polarization. Locally, the politics of climate change can sometimes be less partisan than they are nationally, as Maggie Astor, a climate reporter at The Times, has written.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/18/briefing/extreme-heat-climate-fight-us-government.html

This is what I’ve been saying for several months now: local and state action.

The republicans — representing not only a small minority generally but a minority of voters — have managed to block every federal avenue for change on this issue, a particularly deadly one.

They have the judiciary and the congress. Whatever executive actions the president may take, it’s fairly short term and can be overridden.

They also have, since 2010, most state legislatures and have gerrymandered their way to keeping them for another 10 years at least (another huge story of the 2020 election that barely got coverage, but the results of which are now being felt— so much for focusing solely on national politics). They have the Majority of governorships.

So given this scenario, what else CAN be done other than work locally, within your state? New York and California are major players. Illinois, Colorado, Washington, Oregon, New Mexico— all blue states, all can be pushed farther. Ditto the East cost, where I live: New England can do more. Massachusetts, yes — but also and particularly New Hampshire, the only “swing” state in the region.

There’s town councils, city councils, and a range of commissions that can be appealed to or taken over. There are plenty of groups to join, protests to be made, direct actions to take— hopefully with help from the local media. Disruption and crisis needs to be created for them before they start listening.

Lastly, the labor movement needs to continue making gains and forming unions that are strike-ready. I would love to see more strikes for climate — not for wages or conditions, which are important too, but for climate action.

A lot of this, once narrowed down from the overwhelming and vague level of national drama, can be done.

What's even the proposed connection between "faltering" wind power and a heat wave? — boethius

The claim is that renewables are bringing down the grid because they’re failing and putting pressure on the rest, which also fail.

They blamed the freeze last winter on renewables too, when it was actually refineries.

Just more fossil fuel propaganda, as usual.

I just wanted to point out the relationship between mortgage rates and home prices. Lower rates push prices higher. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I know you’re not implying one thing, but emphasis is important. So yes, I’d be a fool not to notice interest rates has a very real effect on the housing market. But what I’m ultimately fighting against is the idea that inflation is a matter of too much money in the economy. It’s just used as a cover to criticize increases in wages and working people getting a little money— god forbid.

My main point was simply that low rates are generally seen as good for working class people. This isn't necessarily true. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Low or high rates really don’t matter much for working people. They’re screwed one or another. The majority of benefits goes to the wealthy. That’s my point.

This is the kind of nonsense narrative being spewed to millions of Americans:

Temperatures in Texas climbed into the triple digits this week but this isn’t unusual. The problem is that wind power faltered, as it often does during hot spells.

From the WSJ.

Unprecedented heatwaves and wildfires: not unusual. Definitely not climate change related.

The problem? Renewable energy. So let’s dig for even MORE oil and gas and coal, and guarantee these scenarios continue and the world burns to the ground.

Did you warn Jackson at least once, or did you simply ban him? — jgill

Yes, he was warned.

High interest rates aren't the worst thing in the world. Think about the effects on housing. When interest rates on mortgages fall, home prices get bid up because people can afford larger mortgages. What we saw early in the pandemic was historic, rock bottom interest rates helping to spike home prices. — Count Timothy von Icarus

It wasn’t just low interest rates. It was also low inventory. Ask any realtor. New construction hasn’t kept up for years, and people who did own a home were reluctant to sell during the pandemic.

Research on the effects of long term low interest rates appears to show that they are a major driver of inequality. This is something that was only investigated recently, because low rates were thought to be fairly benign. — Count Timothy von Icarus

They are— yes. Why? Because it ultimately leads to increased stock prices, and the top 10% own more than 80% of the stocks. So that will increase their wealth. Meanwhile the 90%, whose real wages have stagnated for decades, simply have less interest to pay on mortgages and credit cards and car loans.

That doesn’t mean raising interest rates will help either. The wealthy will find alternatives. They will be fine one way or another. If workers wages rise 5%, inflation goes up 8% — they increase the prices of their product. If stocks take a dive, they’ll invest in bonds or commodities or emerging markets. Or lobby the government for more aid, or more tax cuts, or find a way to avoid paying taxes altogether. Plenty of options for the wealthy — they will do just fine, and inequality will continue to rise long after the Fed hikes rates.

Real wages have continued to stagnate/decline, and now the borrowing/debt that fills in the gap between household income and the kind of expenditures that sustain a “middle class” life (house, car) or working class life (rent, car, food, gas, utilities, healthcare) will simply be more expensive over the long run. So the 90% will be asked to tighten their belts, work harder, give up any dream of being debt-free or owning property, forget buying a house and probably forget having kids. This is in fact what we’ve already seen.

So there’s no chance the Fed raising rates will change inequality. There’s little chance it even brings down general inflation, come to think of it, since the money they created didn’t go to people, it went to companies — so that they could use it to boost the wealth of the elites who own 80% of their stocks. So it may lower equity markets. It will probably lower housing markets too.

Otherwise there’s little that the Fed can do about wages, about price gouging, about stock buybacks, about supply chain disruptions, commodity shortages, climate change or wars. Inflation is global right now, for global reasons.

simply look at the percentage of all equities held by the top 0.1%, 1%, and 10% wealthiest individuals in developed economies. Rising stock values inflate the value of assets largely held by the wealthy. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes.

Corporations borrow money— cheap money— and this increase their debt. Record levels of corporate debt. Where does this money go? The same question can be asked about subsidies, bailouts, and tax cuts.

They often make record profits— and where do the profits go anyway?

The answer is: roughly 90% of net earnings are distributed to shareholders in the form of dividends and buybacks.

Stock buybacks are also done with borrowed money and tax cut savings.

When it comes to bailouts, as we all saw in 2009, the top executives end up with millions of dollars of compensation— far more than the average worker. The current ratio of CEO pay to average worker pay is about 350:1.

All of this is justified by trickle-down economics. If you favor the supply-side (the owners/employers/corporations), you make sure you cut their taxes, give them cheap loans, and if things get too bad you bail them out through QE and fiscal gifts — because they’re too big to fail. This is basically the last 40 years of neoliberal policy — ironically the age of “free markets” and “small government.”

The result has been, predictably, the wealth inequality you describe, monopolization, and corporatocracy. But it’s really a power inequality. And the bigger that gap becomes, the worse things will get.

The Fed raising interests rates won’t change a thing. Except make the 90% more poor and make it harder to buy a house and take out loans. It’ll saddle even more people with ridiculous levels of harder-to-pay off debt.

Perhaps the right place to start is with thing, what is it? What's a thing? Then and only then should we move to an analysis of nothing. — Agent Smith

Indeed.

Instead of thing, I suggest using “being.”

Then there’s a question about beings (things, individuated entities) and being (thing-ness).

When we think about beings we tend to do so in terms of what is before us in experience— what is present in the world or in our minds — concepts, classes, words, numbers, shapes, colors, individual things, material objects, etc.

It almost can’t be helped; in the same way it’s much more likely that we reflect upon our environment and not what’s happening in China or on Mars.

The same is true of our bodies. The process of my kidneys aren’t before me in experience. It’s a kind of absence. Ditto with habits and automaticity— so much of our lives goes simply unnoticed. Taken for granted.

Is absence a kind of “nothing”, then? In the sense that it’s not present before us, in the background, invisible, withdrawing — then it’s very much like nothing. It’s not a thing in the sense we normally mean “thing” or “being” as that which is known, present, and “there.”

Banned @Jackson for low quality posts and continually showing no interest in discussion.

t, about ten years from now, this will be recognised as one of those watershed moments when the battle was lost. — Wayfarer

It’s not lost by a long shot.

That’s pretty cool.

So you see all of this as inevitable? Better to just get away from it?

I hope you’re wrong, if that’s the case.



Pomerantz has the right idea.

Imagine arguing that the species go extinct because life involves suffering.

I agree with Nietzsche: kind of pathetic. Let them to it!

:smile: Yeah, best leave the professor to his highly logical and super-complicated arguments.

A very stable genius.

I was pretending to be a professor frustrated at his lazy students. And I wasn't pretending.. — Bartricks

Yes, because you’ve definitely shown yourself to be professorial.

“Self evident.”

Anyway— Nice try at dolling up your feelings that life is a mistake.

Yeah it was clear last year that Manchin was aiming for nothing whatsoever. I imagine nothing passes this time too. And there goes the next 10+ more years of inaction. Combined with the 30-40 years of courts acting against any action whatsoever.

Leaves little option but to unionize workplaces and start striking, and shift to the state and local level.

No, the act of procreation creates a person - a person who deserves more than they can possibly be given and who deserves no harm (yet deserves no harm). — Bartricks

I think they deserve the power of invisibility myself. That life doesn’t provide them that is completely unjust, in my view— hence I won’t have kids.

the act of not procreation creates no person and does not deprive a person of anything they deserve. — Bartricks

It deprives them of joy and happiness.

Up. Your. Game. — Bartricks

How about pretending to be an adult for a few pages?



An attempt at wit? You really nailed me, I guess. Bravo. 10 points for you and your “game.”

Anyway, this has been an interesting thread. — DA671

Not even that interesting; rather boring, actually. Listening to people come up with elaborate, circuitous ways to justify their interpretation of life as a mistake isn’t all that interesting.

“They meet a sick man, or an old man, or a corpse -- and immediately they say: "Life is refuted!" But only they are refuted, and their eyes, which see only one side of existence.” — Nietzsche

A non-existent person can't deserve anything. — Bartricks

Ok— so there goes your argument.

A baby doesn’t deserve or not deserve anything either. Deserve in this context is meaningless. That you don’t want to believe that, despite multiple people explaining it to you, is your issue.

:lol:

A corporate statist defending the Great One. How shocking.

The more I think about it, the more this entire thread looks like a giant expression of resentment towards one’s parents because life didn’t turn out how one wanted it.

Kill yourself and/or don’t have kids. Stop forcing your therapy onto others.

It is self-evident to virtually everyone that if a person has done nothing, then they do not deserve to come to any harm. — Bartricks

It’s self evident that if a person has done nothing, they deserve the chance to live.

I guess that settles it. Self evidence.

That's not remotely controversial. — Bartricks

Yet several people — including myself — have rejected it for many reasons. :chin:

Which premise do you think is false then, eh? — Bartricks

:lol: Is this a nervous tic?

Your reason tells you that if someone has done nothing they deserve to come to harm???? — Bartricks

Deserves got nothing to do with it— to quote Clint Eastwood.

They don’t “deserve” anything. Things happen in life — some things we call pain others pleasure. Both are part of life. To argue one deserves to live a harm-free life is exactly the same as saying one deserves non-life — which is exactly what you’re advocating anyway. You try to take a long way around in an attempt to justify it using what’s supposed to pass for “logic,” when in reality it’s a concocted premise designed to reach the conclusion you want: don’t have kids.

So all this talk about “deserve” and “harm free” rests on nothing but fantasy. Which you’re welcome to hold — I have no issue with that.

For others, life is very good indeed—despite your value judgments about what’s “deserved” or what’s good or bad. Your feelings do not a universal moral principle make.

If you deserve a harm free life, you’re free to kill yourself. That’s a personal choice.

The temperature data fits the climate change hypothesis alright, but what/where are the other hypotheses? — Agent Smith

Early on there were many hypotheses — natural cycles, water vapor, and a host of others. These hypotheses have been abandoned.

Also the predictions made over several decades have now become true— in fact the effects have taken place quicker than expected, for example in the melting of the ice caps and severity of draughts.

This is why the idea is so widely accepted. But now it’s completely obvious to the point where even fossil fuel companies acknowledge it publicly. All one has to do is check the global temperature averages which break records year after year.

it contains the same error that is common to all metaphysics: it ignores, or forgets, the involvement of the subject in the question. — Angelo Cannata

Just as this statement ignores the fact that the notion “subject” is equally silly.

Thinking about this the other day and finally the question that trumps all questions hit me. Why is there something rather than nothing ? — Deus

Well you’re not alone! :smile:

I recommend Heidegger’s Introduction to Metaphysics for an analysis of this question. Fascinating, in my view.

I’m not “fighting” anyone. If someone presents an argument, I’m interested in understanding it. This one happens to be unconvincing — and probably not worth questioning much more, given the responses.

But there I go taking for granted— wrongly, I’m sure — that you’re truly interested in an answer and not simply posturing, as nearly every interaction with you has demonstrated.

Habits die hard. Do go on about how authoritarian I am, etc.

Biodiversity collapse is exacerbated by climate change, as you know. Whether it occurs without a rapidly changing climate -- probably, but certainly not to the degree it is. So I'd still place the greater emphasis on lowering emissions, as that will benefit biodiversity collapse greatly. Other solutions to the biodiversity issue are more than welcome.

They deserve no harm and they deserve a happy life.
And they won't get that. — Bartricks

People live happy lives all the time, despite there being harm. So this statement is ridiculous.

True, they won't get "no harm" -- because harm is part of life. But it's equally absurd to claim life ought to be harm-free...which you do, without further explanation, support, evidence, or logic.

They deserve a harm free happy life. That is not what they are going to get. So it's shitty to do that - to create a person who will deserve far, far more than they can be given. — Bartricks

According to you and your peculiar notion of what is "deserved" in life -- namely, the impossible.

Even if you said something like "everyone born deserves to have enough food to eat," that would be at least coherent. Arguing for a "harm-free life" is like asking for a triangle with 2 sides. You never wanted a triangle to begin with. Likewise, you simply don't want life -- because a "harm-free life" is complete fantasy. Your own personal fantasy -- fine. But why come here and try to convince others not to have kids because of your own bizarre interpretation of life?

If you think it is as solid as air, tell me which premise is false. — Bartricks

Why do you keep asking people this when, once someone does tell you which is false, you simply declare it to be self-evidently true?

The line of your debate:

You: "Don't say x, y, or z -- only tell me which premise is false!"

Interlocutor: "Premise k is false."

"No, premise k is true."

"How?"

"It's self-evidently true."

"I don't see any reason to believe it."

"That's because you're an idiot."

The problem is that it's not even an argument, because it's not interested in persuading anyone and doesn't support itself in any way other than "this is a self-evident, undeniable truth" and then making up a story.

Which, by the way, is exactly what religious minded people often do. "God commands us to do x" or "God says x about y," and go on to construct a complicated narrative with corresponding proscriptions for everyone else. Yet at the heart of the matter is simply "I believe in God."

So it is for at least this line of antinatalism.

A person who hasn't done anything doesn't deserve to come to harm.
That's not controversial. You think it is. It ain't. — Bartricks

I think it is, yes. You declaring "it ain't" isn't an argument.

Since most people do seem to prefer existence despite the harms, it doesn't seem right to solely focus on preventing harms. — DA671

Exactly. Why not make the opposite argument, only with joy/happiness?

It's because the entire argument rests on a fantasy about life being good only if there's no harm. Which is impossible so, in other words, life is bad.

So yes, a fabrication of humans, but like any linguistic practice, definitely has its fuzzy boundaries. — Isaac

Definitely.

Yes. That is the most interesting question. It dogs all antinatalist arguments. Why are we reducing harm when there's no one around to benefit from the lack of harm? Harm is something to reduce so that someone can enjoy the lack of it, not something to reduce just because. I was talking in another thread, coincidentally, about the fetishisation of philosophical questions. I think this universal harm-reduction is just such a fetishisation. It's not a feeling anyone actually has, it's a principle it is possible to have and so people, of a certain ilk, will try it on, so to speak, like dressing up in Cowboy costume, just to see how it feels. — Isaac

Yes, and beyond that take it as part of their identity. Many people -- myself included at times -- want to take a generally good principle and universalize it, when every specific situation is almost always more complicated. I see this mistake in a broad range of activities, from monetary policy to poker playing.

These are metaethical issues. If you're going to reject my argument by embracing some form of individual or collective subjectivism about morality, you're welcome as then you'd also be committed to concluding that the Nazis did no wrong. — Bartricks

I don't accept subjectivism, nor that the Nazi's did no wrong.

They're ethical issues and metaethical issues, sure. If you don't want to defend your argument, that's OK. But you started this thread, and put forward an argument. Then you continued, over and over again, to complain about how no one was challenging your premises. I'm doing exactly that: engaging with the argument by challenging one of your premises.

Antinatalism is a normative theory, not a metaethical theory. So if you are forced to stray into metaethics, you've lost. — Bartricks

:smile: It would do you well to put down these sophomoric ideas about "debate," rules of debate, syllogisms, fallacies, and whatever else you've picked up from your reading or classes.

You made a statement. I didn't make the statement -- you did. So the onus is on you, if you care to persuade anyone (which I assume you do -- otherwise why bother posting in a public place?), to defend and support your statement. You don't "win" anything by default, simply by declaring a category error.

Here is the statement: "Innocents deserve a harm-free life."

That is what is being challenged, and that is what you need to flush out and support. If you can't do that, just say so. If you simply fall back on "It's self-evident, and doesn't need justification," then do so -- and we can end the conversation there. Because in that case I can say the opposite, declare it is also self-evident, and go on my merry way without having to waste any more time.

Moral properties are God given, but that's no premise in my argument. My argument requires only that one recognize that persons are created innocent and that an innocent person deserves no harm (and that it is wrong - other things being equal - to create injustices). Those claims are not reasonably deniable. — Bartricks

And yet that's EXACTLY what I'm denying, and why your argument fails to convince me. So what are you going to do about it? Simply declare me "unreasonable"? Insult me? Give up? Again, that's fine. I will simply remain completely unconvinced and go on knowing that your argument rests on nothing but personal whim about what life "should" be.

Or you can support it further. Can't be explained further? That's fine too. In that case we've reached an impasse, and I can with equal support make the claim that life, although it involves harm, is good -- and therefore creating life is good.

Sure. Here's a brief overview I wrote not long ago:

In explaining climate change, for people who are truly interested in learning about it, I always like to start with an easy experiment: you can take two glass containers -- one with room air and one with more CO2 added, and put it in the sun, seeing which one heats up the fastest. Easy, simple. In fact, Eunice Foote did exactly this experiment in 1856:



Then we can ask: How much CO2 is in our atmosphere? Since trees take in CO2 and most living organisms let off CO2, there's always fluctuations. So the next thing would be to look at the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, measured all over the Earth -- starting in the Mauna Loa Volcanic Observatory in 1958 and expanding from there.

What do we see? Concentrations go up and down a little, naturally, every year, because there are more leaves on trees in summer in the Northern Hemisphere than in winter. Yet the average rises every year, leading to the famous Keeling Curve:



That's just from 1958 to the present. When you look at the concentrations over the last 800 thousand years, an even more interesting trend emerges:

https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/graphic-the-relentless-rise-of-carbon-dioxide/

That's 412 parts per million currently, and the last highest level was about 350 thousand years ago at 300 ppm, before modern humans were even around.

So we know (1) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and (2) that there is a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere now than in the last 800,000 years.

One would think the planet would be warming, giving these two facts. So now we'd have to look to see how temperatures have fluctuated over time, and if increases in temperature correlates in any way with increases in CO2. Is there a correlation?

Turns out there is.

Over 100 years:



And over 800 thousand years:



Then the question becomes: why is this happening? Where is all of this extra CO2 coming from -- and in such a relatively short period of time?

The answer to that question is because of human activity, especially since the industrial revolution. As world population increases, and more trees are cut down (for fuel, houses, and to make room for raising livestock), there is less of a carbon "sponge."

But on top of this, we're also burning things. Burning wood puts CO2 into the atmosphere. Cows and other livestock also release a lot of methane, another greenhouse gas.

But of course it's not only wood and not only livestock. The main culprit, it turns out -- and why the industrial revolution was mentioned -- is fossil fuel: coal, oil, and natural gas. These are carbon-dense objects, and when burned release a huge amount of CO2. Multiply this burning by an increasing population, year after year for over 150 years, and it becomes very clear where the excess CO2 is coming from.

So human activity is the driver of rapid global warming.

Lastly, so what? What's the big deal about increasing the global temperature by just a few degrees?

I think the answer to this is obvious once you realize how only a few fractions of a degrees has large effects over time, which we're already beginning to see. The melting of the ice caps, sea level rise, an increase in draughts and wildfires -- all happening before our eyes, as every year we break more heat records.

In my opinion, I think it's undeniable that this is the issue of our time and those of us who aren't in denial should at least put it in their top 3 political priorities and act accordingly.

Climate change (due to CO2 emissions), is it falsifiable? — Agent Smith

Yes.

What predictions have been made by climate scientists in re climate change? — Agent Smith

Lots.

"Extreme weather" is just too vague for me and others too I presume. — Agent Smith

Climate isn’t weather.

If you’re truly curious, there’s thousands of options to study it and mountains of evidence.

Apologies. I’m trying to engage mostly with the OP. I view your argument as a separate one. Although interesting, I haven’t had the time to give a careful reading.