Also yeah let's just plug our ears and la-la-la the fact that Biden has approved more oil and gas leases than Trump did, pace-wise, — StreetlightX

Also that he is pushing OPEC to increase oil production while lecturing the world about emissions reductions. Which is a shock to no one.

you keep falling back on this idea that I've said that bith parties are 'the same'. Which I haven't said, not once. — StreetlightX

Right— you’ve said the democrats are worse, which is also very cute.

Voting is a minor decision. Vote against climate deniers and move on. Simple.

So getting back on topic:

Pelosi is pushing for a vote on the “bipartisan” bill tonight. Both bills were supposed to be voted on together, with the BBB first, which is already a cave by the CPC. The “moderates” are now saying they don’t want to do that until the CBO gives more information about the BBB’s cost. :lol:

So let’s see if the progressives vote for this or not. I’m betting they will, completing the cave.

Your shitty fucking democrat party is a shitty fucking party and supporting them will kill this planet — StreetlightX

They’re not doing nearly enough, and for obvious and predictable reasons. The alternative is the Trump administration and Republicans— which is an absolute guarantee of the worst happening. It’s not the same. Given that there are only two parties, there’s a choice: decide who is worse, given your objectives, and vote against the worst. The Republicans are worse. That’s not an endorsement of Democrats. It’s also not an endorsement of the two party system.

This is only a hard choice for those who do nothing, and have bought into the establishment propaganda about the importance of voting — as if that’s the only power we have. In that case— sure, don’t vote. Or vote third party. Or write in a candidate. That’ll teach them!

I figure them as a shill for the side they ignore. — James Riley

In fairness, I don't think he's a shill for the Republicans. He'll claim I'm a shill for the Democrats. What doesn't seem to be understood is that one can see the corruption and the corporate stranglehold on the two-party system in the US, and yet still recognize minor differences which, in a superpower, are relevant. I mention climate change as one example, but there are plenty of others. It's also within the Democratic party that we find a Bernie Sanders or an AOC, which is encouraging.

I plan to act as I always have. In other words, no plan at all. No suggestions, no advice, no plan, no secret way. — NOS4A2

:rofl:

No thoughts, no ideas, no principles. Just an affinity for slavery and authoritarianism. Oops, I mean "freedom."

Unfortunately I'm as bad a role model and as immature as he is in terms of communication, so I don't claim any wisdom in that respect. The points are make should be so trivial it's astonishing they even have to be written. But that's the harm of over-thinking things, I suppose.

It’s all interpretation. Once you’re thinking or talking about it, you’re interpreting. If you perceive, you’re interpreting. Take vision as an example.
— Xtrix

What is it you interpret vision to be interpreting? — Ciceronianus

Colors, for example.

I believe I understand what you're saying, but I think that there comes a point when insisting all is interpretation becomes meaningless, or pedantic (no offense intended). That may be the Pragmatist in me. When we assert that when I see a chair I'm interpreting it, I doubt we're saying anything significant. When we claim that we can distinguish a human being from a potato, I don't think this is an interpretation in any reasonable sense. — Ciceronianus

Well in the sense of perception, yes it's an interpretation. And it is trivial, yes. When it comes to an understanding of being (the world, the human being, etc), it's also an interpretation -- but it doesn't necessarily have to be explicit or theoretical. It's just what everyone knows and does. If you were to study a tribe somewhere, by looking at what they do -- their culture, their vocabulary, their customs, their rites, their work, their daily routines, etc -- you can better grasp their understanding of being.

The idea that the U.S. has some real and substantial problems, and that the two parties are indistinguishable from a certain perspective, has merit. But if those problems and the lack of distinction are simply tools being used to further undermine and divide, without the offer of a viable, constructive criticism, then it’s easier to flush him down the toilet. — James Riley

The two parties are not indistinguishable. They're bought off and pressured by different interests and constituents. It's true almost all are corporatists, but there are different industries at play. The fossil fuel companies pour far more money into the Republican party, and their media networks, think tanks, lobbying groups, and presence in business and law schools are well documented. The Koch brothers have been especially influential.

They're simply the opposite direction of most of where we want to be in the United States. The Democrats, while also neoliberal capitalists, have a different set of strategies. They are owned by a different segment of the corporate world -- namely, the financial industry (Wall Street). These people are starting to get nervous about the effects of climate change, and so the Democrats are allowed to pay lip service to it. They propose things like the Green New Deal, which is a good start; they're able to run progressive candidates and are having success with them. The party has been pushed left, beyond a doubt. They will continue to be pushed left. Whether it's done in time is the question. But in the meantime, we keep not only pushing but creating the conditions for change at a grassroots level (which is why Bernie was able to take off).

It's easy to sit back and say it's all hopeless, that nothing will change, and that there aren't any solutions. Much harder to propose alternatives -- which is why you'll hear absolutely none from Street or any other idealist. No specificity, no details -- because those are too hard. Much easier to keep it general, because this way you don't have to look into things.

But the entire issue is trivial: vote against the worst party and the worst candidates, and move on with the hard work of organizing, educating, supporting more progressive candidates, engaging in local and state politics and economics, etc. All else is cynical, superficial, adolescent nonsense that comes from reading too many books and sitting on your ass too long.

I have a time horizon of 10-20 years, in which we need to transform both the energy sector and agriculture if we want to survive. We don’t have 100 years to end neo-feudalism. If you’re not factoring that in you’re simply not serious.

True, having democrats or progressives in office may accomplish nothing or even make things worse. If that’s the case, we’re toast. So it’s hopeless. — Xtrix

Your lack of imagination is not an indictment on hope. — StreetlightX

On climate change, Republicans say it's a hoax, Democrats say it's a problem. The Biden administration has appointed a Native American as secretary of interior, for example -- a very good move. They've re-established National monuments and regulations weakened under Trump, and put a moratorium on drilling on public lands. None of this goes far enough, but compare to the Trump administration when Scott Pruitt, an oil lobbyist, was the head of the EPA and Ryan Zinke, a former board member of a pipeline company, was head of the Interior.

If you are listening to climate scientists, and truly see no difference between the administrations, you're simply not serious. Any public pressure was completely useless in the Trump administration -- they went the opposite way. If you want to pretend that it's not worthwhile to vote against climate deniers when scientists say we have 10-20 years to turn things around, that's your problem. And indeed a lack of not just imagination, but logic.

Geez. I like what you're saying but what if activism is just a phony thing that doesn't really accomplish anything? Not saying I believe that but what if? — John McMannis

Then there's nothing we can do but hope. But that's not the case. Plenty is being done and has been done.

Is this in reference to the other response I got from street light? Because he is saying the opposite almost. What if we just take away the word activism and just say fighting and organizing and stuff, like you're saying. I think you both agree with that but cal it different things. — John McMannis

We can use any word we like, it makes no difference. What matters is educating, organizing with others, and acting collectively. Look at the civil rights movement or the environmental movement or the anti-war movement. Look at women's rights and gay rights. Whether we call this "activism" or not is irrelevant. I see no problem with the word myself.

This does make sense to me. In other words just vote against Trump or people like him but don't make a big deal about it and don't pretend that joe biden is so great? That's kind of where I am at in how I feel about them but yet pretty pessimistic about anything big changing in my life. — John McMannis

Right -- we should all prevent the worst from happening, at minimum. It takes almost no time. Then we should get back to the real work. I understand the pessimism, but that shouldn't be a preventative for fighting. Not fighting guarantees the worst.

I'll definitely take this advice. Any suggestions on how best to get involved locally or how to break into the conversation with people about this stuff? It's not so easy for me. — John McMannis

I can give you suggestions from my own life if that's helpful. Just send me a message if you're interested.

We will win because our timescales are geographic!

Liberals like our blue MAGA friends in this thread have a time-horizon of whatever next big political conference is coming up, organized by the powers that be as they ferry themselves there in jets and private cars. — StreetlightX

I have a time horizon of 10-20 years, in which we need to transform both the energy sector and agriculture if we want to survive. We don’t have 100 years to end neo-feudalism. If you’re not factoring that in you’re simply not serious.

True, having democrats or progressives in office may accomplish nothing or even make things worse. If that’s the case, we’re toast. So it’s hopeless.

But the reality is we live in a two-party system that won’t change in our lifetime. Unfortunately we have to vote against one or the other. Republicans want to drill more and deny climate change is real— that’s worth voting against. Very simple stuff, and says absolutely nothing about being in favor of the Democratic Party.

They know/knew we get hungry, eat, procreate, fight--they and we know a great deal about what a human being is and would agree that such characteristics are common to human beings. There would be no dispute regarding whether a person was a human being having such characteristics. — Ciceronianus

Not necessarily. Apes have the same characteristics you mentioned. In fact some explorers were often unsure about the humanity of the tribes they encountered — which is racist, of course, but still a fact.

Anyway, I’m nitpicking. I understand your point. I’m only emphasizing this to demonstrate that knowing what a human being is perhaps isn’t as easy as you believe. We’re able to distinguish differences between trees and shrubs, between horse and donkey, between humans and primates— but to pin down exactly why they’re different and whether or not they belong in similar categories isn’t an easy task, as we learn from taxonomy.

These are issues, as you say, of interpretation. — Ciceronianus

It’s all interpretation. Once you’re thinking or talking about it, you’re interpreting. If you perceive, you’re interpreting. Take vision as an example.

That doesn’t man there’s no such thing as truth, or that anything goes. But it does mean that what we take as solid fact, basic truth, or total agreement really doesn’t guarantee us much. And to say human beings are organisms, at bottom, and all else is interpretation, is just saying “This interpretation is the reality, and all other interpretations are interesting but culturally dependent.”

Some just don't like the word "common", and can't even seem to get past that to the word "good." Others don't have any input on it at all. It is perfectly understandable that those who are concerned with the common good seek the input of others. That's what communities do. — James Riley

Communist! Don’t you understand there IS no community, only individuals pursuing their own interests. So sayeth Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman.

Markets will solve all problems, provided government doesn’t step in to ruin everything.

Discussion? More like inquisition. — NOS4A2

:lol: :lol: :rofl:

Climate change is a Chinese hoax because Trump said so.

Are you saying we should vote a third party or not bother voting at all and get more engaged in local stuff? You both seem not to like either party much so what would you recommend the average person do? — John McMannis

Become an activist. Educate yourself and others, organize with others. Identify programs you want and push for them. This is done all the time, if you look around. It was especially prevalent in the 60s, and much of the progress we see today comes from exactly those movements. One example today is the climate change movement -- the Sunrise Movement and one I'm involved with, 350.org (founded by Bill McKibben) -- where pressure from below is pushing more and more candidates to propose ambitious legislation. This is currently happening too slowly and will either entirely fail or get whittled down to nothing, predictably, but that's missing the point. (Ask yourself what climate provisions would have even been on the table under a Trump administration?) The point is to continuously create and push for programs you want, on the national, state, and local level. Anyone who wants to deny activism as the essential part of progress should simply be ignored.

As for voting: there are two political parties in the United States. As Noam Chomsky has mentioned, and I agree with, an activist should take two minutes to see which candidate is worse, and vote against that candidate -- then get back to the important work of educating and organizing. Voting is important, but hardly any more important than those two minutes. You should do it, then move on. Not voting, or voting third party in a swing state, is helping the worse candidate succeed -- period. That's just arithmetic. Idealists and purists simply cannot understand this, so there's no use arguing over it. But the choice is a simple one. It's not an endorsement of the Democratic party, or Joe Biden. It's a vote against the Republican party, who are even worse. Those who want to claim the Republicans and Democrats are the same are, likewise, deluding themselves.

I'm hoping to become more involved myself but not sure where to start. — John McMannis

Start locally. There's far too much time and energy spent on national politics, where an individual can do very little. You can do much more at the local and state level. But it's not only local politics/government worth focusing on -- it's also the corporate interests that essentially own and direct much of the government. Real power today lies not only in political power but in economic power, and the heart of that is the corporation -- because that's where the real money flows (and money talks). If you work for a corporation, or even a smaller company, get to know how they work -- understand the administrative structure of boards of directors and executives. You mentioned elsewhere that you had been approached by a coworker to start a union -- as I said, that's an excellent idea. Educate yourself about how to unionize.

Most importantly is to talk with other people. It's next to impossible to do it all yourself, especially when there are plenty of other responsibilities one has in life. This idea of individualism is foisted upon us to keep us isolated. This is why there's such a sense of hopelessness, because even though people recognize the problems they feel they can't do anything about it, being just one person. This is by design. The most powerful people on earth are not individualists, they're socialists. They coordinate with their class all the time to maintain their power, and they always look after each other. The middle and working classes have been conditioned to fear and hate their own members, but they can do the same. Don't let yourself be pulled into this demonizing of collectivism, nor be fooled by the illusion of connection pushed by social media companies. There's a real world out there, with real people, and it's worth joining.

subjugated minds that march to the beat of its (war)drums at their beck and call. — Tzeentch

Yeah yeah yeah— you’re very special for going against the grain. How brave of you. How unique.

I think yours is actually a very common one, from what you describe. The fact that we're leaving the next generation with such massive problems is scandalous. You're a living example of a wider problem, which is a kind of hopelessness and designed ignorance -- ignorance of the socioeconomic system we live in, which is not only capitalism but a specific type: neoliberal capitalism.

I think reaching out to others, even if online, is actually a good instinct. It's almost impossible to break through all of this on your own, especially when you have a full time job and family. I think the union idea is actually an excellent one -- pay attention to those who are trying to get you involved. You may not know exactly what you want to do, but jumping into things may open avenues which you didn't know existed.

That person doesn't have any problem distinguishing a human being from an owl, or an ant. — Ciceronianus

Yes, but that's not saying much. The Christian doesn't have much issue with that either. Nor did the Greek. Nor did the Hindus. We don't have much problem separating a tree from a rock, but that doesn't prove anything about what a tree or rock "really is," underneath it all (e.g., one consists of cells and the other doesn't).

The person asking the question is either engaged in a kind of academic exercise, wishing to describe a human being for who knows what reason, or listing what it is that distinguished human beings from insects (for example) or wondering whether a human being is something more than what he/she/whatever already knows to be the case, or perhaps determine what a human being should be. — Ciceronianus

There you go again. "Already knows." What do they "already know"? I think you're quite right -- they do "already know," and what they know is very different depending on time and place. In Medieval Europe, they "already knew" that humans were created by God -- before conducting their academic (or Scholastic) exercise. Today we "already know" that we're simply evolved, biological organisms -- before we conduct our academic exercises about "what a human being is." Both are interpretations, both are "pre-theoretical."

I kind of like this. Is this from a book or just your own stuff? — John McMannis

Thanks. Not from a book, but might as well be. Like anything it's a combination of books I've read about history and philosophy filtered through the snowflake-like tapestry of my brain's neurochemistry. :wink:

So any time I'm asking universal questions I'm doing philosophy? — John McMannis

In my view, yes.

What do you consider universal questions? — John McMannis

One's that thinkers throughout history have asked and struggled with:

What is a good life? What is good?
What am I?
What happens after death?
What should we do?
What is knowledge? Justice? Love? Beauty? Consciousness?
What is being?

And so on...

What about when I'm sweeping my floor and taking a shower? I'm thinking a lot there to, but it's not philosophical, so what is it? — John McMannis

Reverie, I guess. Or simply average thinking. Sometimes I like to call it "junk thought." We're talking to ourselves all the time, and almost none of it gets expressed, nor is any of it worth expressing. My mind wanders a lot, jumping from image to image or word to word. Most of it is just crap.

Not many people ask themselves big questions.....does that mean most of us aren't philosophers? — John McMannis

Indeed.

What about friends and family? — John McMannis

That was all satire buddy.

The only thing that exists is the individual. Anything else is communism.

The individual seeking their interests— that’s it. No such thing as society. Thus, we need a government only for courts and police. Everything else should be based on private property and the opportunity to succeed in an unregulated, free market. That will solve all problems.

Is social media making society more mentally ill? — TheQuestion

Yes.

The "REAL truth" isn't at issue. Your point as I recall was that we humans ask ourselves (among other things) "what we are" (I paraphrase). My contention is we know what we are, but enjoy thinking otherwise — Ciceronianus

Yes, I know. And my contention is that this is completely misguided. We don't "know what we are" and simply like to think otherwise; rather, we interpret ourselves in various ways -- and always have. To say we're organisms trying to survive is one of those interpretations. Why you privilege this above others is why I mentioned "default" and "real truth" -- how else is it to be interpreted? If we "know what we are," and what we are is an organism, then that indeed is the "real truth," the rest being mere thinking. That's how you're portraying it, and that's simply a mistake. It's mistaking one interpretation for the "true" interpretation. Which is what Christians and many others do as well.

I think that's what we're doing when we ask ourselves: What is a human being? — Ciceronianus

When we ask that question, we're already in a different mode of being than we are in when hunting, gathering, engaging with tools and interacting with others. Which is exactly what you're doing as well when you then interpret human being as an organism trying to survive.

It happens we can be reasonably certain that we're made up of atoms. We're also reasonably certain that we're living creatures in a world with other things we interact with on a daily basis (putting aside the silly claims some philosophers are pleased to make now and then). It would be incorrect, though, for us to say human beings are "God's creatures" or creatures that have souls, for example. To the extent we make such claims when asking what we are, I think we engage in wishful thinking. Maybe we are, maybe we do, but to assert we are/do is unwarranted. — Ciceronianus

There's a much richer explanatory theory in physics and chemistry than many of the claims of Christian dogma, yes. But some Christians are more sophisticated, defining God as a kind of "force" or energy field...none of this is the point, though. It's not that every interpretation is equally serious. Science happens to be very powerful for many different reasons. But it simply cannot explain everything, and continuously fails to see how reliant it is on philosophy and is, in fact, an outgrowth of philosophy -- namely, natural philosophy.

Those two strengths go up against the equally powerful bulwarks of the status quo: vested interest and inertia.

The first, the fossil fuel lobby, has suffered damage in recent years: a global divestment campaign, for instance, has put $15tn in endowments and portfolios beyond its reach, and it builds little now without resistance. People increasingly see through the fossil fuel lobby’s attempts at greenwashing. But it maintains its hold on too many capitals – in the United States, the Republican party is its wholly owned subsidiary, which makes progress halting at best. And the planet’s financial superpowers – Chase, Citi, BlackRock and the rest – continue to lend and invest as if there was nothing wrong with an industry that is literally setting the Earth on fire.

As for inertia, it’s a deep obstacle, simply because the climate crisis is a timed test. Without swift change we will pass irrevocable tipping points: winning slowly on climate is simply another way of losing. Every huge forest fire, every hurricane strike, every month of drought heightens public demand for change – but every distraction weakens that demand. Covid could not have come at a worse time – indeed, it very nearly undid these talks for the second year in a row.

So, that’s the playbill. We have two big forces on each side of the drama, behemoths leaning against each other and looking for weakness to exploit. In the wings, old hands like John Kerry, the US climate envoy, push and probe; if the US Senate actually passes a serious climate plan before Glasgow, his power will increase like some video game character handed a magic sword. If the price of gas keeps rising in Europe, perhaps that weakens chances for a breakthrough.

We know which side will win in the end, because vested interest is slowly shifting towards the ever-larger renewable sector, and because inertia over time loses ground to the movements that keep growing. But we don’t know if that win will come in time to matter. Glasgow, in other words, is about pace: will it accelerate change, or will things stay on their same too-slow trajectory? Time will tell – it’s the most important variable by far.

Bill McKibben

Keep simping for plutocrats. — StreetlightX

:lol:

we need MoRe AcTiViSsmmmm — StreetlightX

Indeed. Organizing, collective action, etc. The alternative which you present -- doing nothing -- is a good option if you're a simpleton.

that safety provides a limitless mandate for the use of power and the breaching of human rights, — Tzeentch

:lol:

Tyranny!

I don’t see this as being anything like religion nor philosophy. Those two distinctions are merely laid out for academic convenience but the underlying principles of human existence are still items of human existence. Giving authorship and agency to inanimate objects is also something human infants do before they can either walk or talk - in is a natural disposition (the psychological/neurological evidence for this is clear as can be). — I like sushi

Exactly. The reference seems interesting and I’ll check it out.

So a biological interpretation is what we’ve always known?
I highly doubt prehistorical people thought of themselves this way or spoke of themselves this way.
— Xtrix
The sense of self is a "modern" notion. Believe it or not, "self" did not exist in the cerebral happenings of humans in the primitive era. This is a modern philosophical idea, not a religious one. — Caldwell

I don’t see the relevance of this comment. I didn’t say anything about the concept of “self” nor that it was a religious idea.

Of course “primitive” humans referred to themselves and thought about their own being and the being of others, just as I said. There’s nothing philosophical about that— people do it all the time, and there are words in every language that does so. If you truly can’t distinguish between this ordinary usage and the technical notion of “self,” then that’s your problem.

That was the temperature during the Eocene. — frank

When human beings weren't even a dream. Yes, and the earth was practically a fireball if you go back far enough.

Like I said, look into it a little more. That may help your denial.

The world won't be unlivable during the worst part of the warming. — frank

:lol:

Interesting to see the variants of climate denial crop up.

I'm astonished that you put so much energy into this topic and don't know that. — frank

You don't know what you're talking about. Which is not so astonishing.

The "worst part of warming" is meaningless. The worst case is that we spiral out of control, and hit over 4 or 5 degrees of warming. Do you know what that will look like? Are you aware of what even a 2C rise will do? No, you don't. You have no idea. None. So until you look into that a little more, I'll continue to laugh in your "astonished" face.

it really seems important but isn't the issue more about why we don't do something about it? Why aren't our governments or are elected leaders doing anything serious? Is it because they're all given money by the energy companies and stuff? — John McMannis

Partly, yes. Many aren't bought by fossil fuel interests, but by other corporate interests -- so they don't care about changing the energy sector. But they're all motivated by power, and the way they maintain their power is through getting elected. Getting elected requires a lot of money and a lot of propaganda, because the "people" (the voters) still have a say. If you're running for office, you've already been filtered out -- probably come from a wealthy family, have gone to elite universities, or have come around to the ideology of the ruling class.

Big Oil is becoming a persona non grata, like tobacco before it, so more politicians are giving lip service to reeling them in. Still very little has been done, because they still have a lot of lobbying power and have nearly the entire Republican party completely under their control, so passing any meaningful legislation is next to impossible. But even if some did get through, they use the courts (now completely reshaped thanks to the hard work of McConnell and the election of Trump) to delay or overrule it.

Or is it because it's too hard of an issue to solve? What are the solutions besides renewable energy? — John McMannis

We have the solutions. Renewable energy is now at a level of technology that it can be employed, and is "cost effective." What's needed right now is electrification of the infrastructure, which will take while and require a lot of investment. It'll require nuclear energy as well, in my view. It'll require divesting from fossil fuel companies, which is gaining momentum. Most importantly, it'll require -- as with nearly anything beneficial that has ever happened in history, from the New Deal to civil rights to women's rights to gay rights -- ordinary citizens to come together and demand it. Seems cliched, but it's true. That requires education, communication, organizing, collective action.

Why do people keep voting for people who don't do anything? — John McMannis

All good and basic questions. We're stuck in a two-party system in the United States, and both are beholden to corporate interests. The Republicans get much more money from fossil fuel companies than Democrats, and so the former are outright deniers (led by Trump, who once said that climate change is a Chinese hoax) and the latter say nice words but never deliver. As this issue becomes more and more severe, we see painfully slow movement. Now the Republicans, led by the fossil fuel companies themselves, are saying climate change is a real threat and we should do something, but offer nothing but greenwashing bullshit. The Democrats are making some lovely proposals, knowing full well there's no chance of them passing and deliberately letting them fail. Biden, for example, makes a lot of noise about the importance of climate change, and then turns around and begs OPEC to pump more oil. Why? Because high gas prices hurt his approval ratings.

So the voter is stuck between a rock and hard place. If they punish the Democrats by not voting, or voting third party, then the Republicans win, who are even worse. Third party candidates like Ralph Nader gain almost no traction and then are blamed for siphoning votes. Bernie and progressive candidates, many of which are no doubt sincere, have to take the label "Democrat" but are often fought against by the DNC. They're made it through in recent years thanks to social media and independent fundraising, but they're still a small minority.

So no easy answers, but nothing will happen at all if we give up.

100,000 years isn't permanent. I don't think it's picky to say so. — frank

Picky isn't the right word. Idiotic. Stupid. Ignorant. Moronic. Imbecilic. Buffoonish. Doltish. Shallow. All these suffice.

I'll spell it out for those following along (not for you -- go back to sleep), in case it isn't crystal clear why this is so stupid:

Greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise, and the planet is warming along with them. We're currently on track to a roughly 2.7C rise, which will make the world unrecognizable and probably lead to tipping points which would be irreversible and, as David Archer (for those who have read him) explains, will last for thousands of years to come. Emissions need to be phased out as quickly as possible.

That's the challenge that we face. To throw in something like "Well, maybe we don't ALL end up dead," or "We'll probably adapt," or "in 10,000 years things may get back to livable conditions," is more denialist bullshit -- nothing more. That's not the argument David Archer, or anyone serious, is making. No one should take it seriously. What we should be doing is all we can to educate and organize -- to do all we can to contribute to stopping the "digging of our own graves," as Guterres rightly says. Not to speculate about how a few human beings may survive, or about how the dust will settle in thousands of years. It's true in the case of nuclear war, it's true in the case of climate change -- totally irrelevant. If there were a 1% chance that humanity will be wiped out, or the earth significantly altered for the worse, than we should take it seriously. It's far beyond 1%.

How many months has Trump been out of office now? — NOS4A2

Never. Because he never lost, and will soon be reinstated.

The problem is you guys are the stupid people. — NOS4A2

Yes! Anyone who listens to 99% of experts in any field, rather than using his own brain to figure things out from his bedroom, is stupid indeed. I've always felt atomic theory was way off the mark, for example. Evolution too -- I mean, come on. Obviously we were designed by God. I don't need careerists telling me what to think. That's why I don't go to the doctor.

What isn't? — The Opposite

Just satirizing the ramblings of one of our several town idiots.

Donald Trump will save us. The government isn't the solution, it's the problem. We need smaller government. The solution to our problem is a free market -- no government interference. It's all about freedom.

And climate change is a liberal/Chinese hoax.

“Politicians will save us!” — NOS4A2

No, Donald Trump will -- because he's not a politician, he says things like it is.

:up:

Yeah, it really comes down to how we want to interpret or talk about human activity. It's perfectly fine to put on our biological/evolutionary glasses -- that's a powerful perspective and it explains a lot, and a lot of patterns emerge and questions answered when you do so.

But to argue it's somehow the "basic" perspective, or that we've stumbled, at long last, upon the Truth -- all else being quaint nonsense -- is a mistake.

I know it’s very speculative but I have found it an interesting premise from which to view social change. Rather than the obsession with the abstract ‘cultural’ exchanges maybe the issue is a matter of physiological changes due to reaching a population threshold. — I like sushi

Another interesting perspective, yes.