The Nature of the Physical World by Arthur Eddington
The Aosawa Murders by Riku Onda

I know they may not be as urgent, but I have a feeling that novels are quite important for understanding human beings. Just suggesting to folks to read one a year, if not many more...

Then again my intuition could be bs.

Indeed.

:up:

Or attempting to give structure to our stupidity= it's not that wisdom grows, it's that one's ignorance is more clearly seen the more you discover things. :cool:

The case with Socrates is illuminating, he denied he was the wisest man in Athens, maintaining that all he knew was that he knew nothing.

Obviously it's hard to accept the conclusion that Socrates knew nothing, but if he says he is not wise, then there's a problem with the concept. Perhaps we need to think about wisdom differently and instead of attributing to a person, we say that a person acted wisely or said something wise, while not saying that the person is wise.

As for Buddha yes, he would fit what comes to mind when one things of wisdom, but I don't know what he would've said about the topic, as I know almost nothing on the topic. So whatever wisdom is, almost no one will say that they are wise, even if people attribute wisdom to them.

Yeah I tend to agree. Which makes the whole thing problematic, if no wise person will ever say they are wise, then what are we even talking about?

They do have running water. There's a ton of misinformation out there. They're free to build their own facilities but the money gets mismanaged by the governing authorities. Gazans are free to go fishing but I don't know every fishing regulation there is. — BitconnectCarlos

Maybe the people at Oxfam are propagandists on Hamas' pay role. I'd have my doubts: https://www.oxfam.org/en/failing-gaza-undrinkable-water-no-access-toilets-and-little-hope-horizon

But why would Israel do that without a concrete guarantee that the Palestinians have given up further territorial claims? Also it would mean kicking thousands of Jews off of land that they've lived in for hundreds if not thousands of years. — BitconnectCarlos

Palestinians lost 78% of there state in 1948. Yes some Jews lived in communities there, but it wasn't a part of a larger claim for the existence of a state. That exploded due to WWII. Zionism used to have many branches, including anti-State varieties.

The settlers are taking land illegally, recognized by the whole world, except by Israel. I really don't think the whole world is anti-Semitic. 90,000 French settlers in Algeria had to leave because of the war in Algeria. I'm sure they had similar claims to land, or would have made some up even if they didn't have such a claim.

It's a nice belief and I wish it were true. — BitconnectCarlos

One thing is what I'd like to be true another thing is what's likely to happen based on available evidence and reason. I'd like to live in a world without borders that guarantees everybody a generous UBI just for being a human being, under a single currency and a total ban on all guns. That's never going to happen. Likewise, Palestinians in overwhelmingly part because of the occupation hate Israel, yes. I'm sure most of them would love if Israel disappeared.

I get that. I also get it that Israeli's would be afraid of such views and If I were an Israeli, I would not want my state to disappear. In reality, Israel has one of the best military armies in the world, given massive support by the US and has one of the most developed infrastructures in all the Arab world. Palestinians will not be able to expel the Jews. They don't have the means. Nor will they get them.

That's the point. Israel will keep most of its land and will eventually stop being viewed so badly in the rest of the world. Compare Japan and Germany today to WWII, both are quite popular worldwide. Why would Israel be different in 30-40 years? So based on the realities of power, I don't see the massive risks you are concerned about.

Palestinians gaining control of all of the WB just places more Israeli cities in range for Palestinian rockets. We already see what happens with border towns like Sderot where there's bomb shelters everywhere and the place has a massively high rate of trauma and PTSD. — BitconnectCarlos

Sure. But you reduce those threats by abiding to 242, what the world agrees to. How would Israel allow more missiles in the WB even if they gave up the territories? Then there'd be legitimate legal arguments for Israel to make for self defense as well as legal sanctions that could be made to other governments. Yes, every path has risks. You'll have to settle with the least bad option, the one which addresses the grievances of the Occupied in the territories.

Portraying Israel as a victim no longer convinces most of the world. There has to be a reason for that that is not reducible to anti-Semitism.

Tough question. Personally I don't think thinking about who is wise has been particularly helpful in my personal experience. I suppose there may have been a time in which I'd try to look for people who have this elusive quality. The most I ever got of talking to people who are considered wise is a certain genuine humility. That I liked.

But much beyond that, it's just so easy to confuse wisdom with dubious and obscure ideologies that I don't like, nor do I think are good in general.

But each persons experience is unique.

Mind and matter aren't opposites. It's hard sometimes for people to get that point...

Sure.

What's the meaning of autonomy if they don't have running water, they have restrictions on caloric intake, they can't fish as they wish on there shore, etc? That's not "autonomy" in any sense of the word.

I think that if you have back WB and Gaza, things would get much better. I frankly don't understand what Palestinians would do to Israel without facing massive and severe repercussions. The Palestinians aren't getting an army so I don't think there is too much to worry about. But there will continue to be much to worry about if the occupation continues.

Yes, this is likely true. And in a way, it makes sense. A good deal of philosophy deals with questions for which we have no answers for. To account for this we must take up a certain attitude in relation to these matters and since there is likely no way to settle (at lost some) if not many of these issues empirically, we are left with intuition and personal dispositions.

Thus those who dislike being faced with such problems can adopt a linguistic attitude and attempt to clarify or dissolve them.

Those who think that since science has solved a good many issues and will to do so can adopt a scientistic or quasi-verificationist method.

Those who think that one cannot make sense of the world absent human being will go to idealistic varieties.

Then there are people who think the world is so strange that it makes no sense to give it a label might be persuaded to take a neutralistic or naturalistic view.

And many, many variations of the above mentioned and some not named end up being whatever we take philosophy to be. But to profess "objectivity", completely devoid of our inclinations, proclivities and everything else is another kind of philosophical outlook. One which I think isn't really attainable.

But all this is what makes the topic interesting to me. If all we had to do with every possible human problem was to look at the evidence, and nothing else, then there'd be nothing to say. And that would make everything boring. Or so it looks like to me.

I'll hear about criticism or prejudice towards Muslims, but I was asking about Arabs earlier. The difference is that Arab is an ethnicity and there are Arabs of all religious backgrounds who live all around the world.

Islam is open to legitimate criticism. Being an Arab is not. — BitconnectCarlos

The reason for mixing them up is the same reason why Israel is often mixed up with being Jewish, it's a way to criticize Arabs or Jews, without naming them directly, leading to plausible deniability. Needless to say not all Arabs are Muslim nor all Israeli Jews.

Hamas is a fundamentalist Islamic organization but the people who primarily suffer due to that are the Palestinians living under them. Sure the Israelis face bombs and threats, but I'd much rather be fighting that than living under it. — BitconnectCarlos

Yes. But the people living under Hamas don't have much of an option, in that other representatives in Gaza, whatever remains, can't even fight back. Yes Hamas is ugly, but they fight back and that counts for something, whatever else may be said about them aside.

Anti-semitism in the Arab world did not only begin existing in 1948, there's a very long history there. Israel currently is also at peace with a number of its Arab neighbors including Egypt whom it gave back Sinai to in... 1988? It's been some time since these countries were actually at war.

There are Gallup polls that measure this type of thing that I'd be happy to show you if we wanted to pursue this further. These polls reflect deep-seated attitudes that extend far beyond Israel. — BitconnectCarlos

And the peace brokered by Egypt and Jordan were done with the leaders of the country, often at odds with what the population wants. It's not that I don't think Israel shouldn't have peace, it's that it should be done representing in a democratic matter, not by leaders who don't represent the will of the people.

You're argument may have had much more force back in the 50's and 60's. Putting aside wishful thinking by some of Israel's victims, they know that Israel is here to stay. They would probably be much less hostile if Israel gave back the occupied territories and give Palestinians total autonomy within these areas.

That would lead to a much better view of Israel, no doubt about it.

Vilified by who? The Arabs? The western world? I don't deny that settlers in the WB can be provocative, but I don't see them as being the main reason that Israel is vilified. You also have to remember that there has been Jewish communities in the WB going back thousands of years. — BitconnectCarlos

I had in mind many countries in the world, not so much the Arab population. Statistics that go back thousands of years aren't worth much.

One last question:

Sure. But I mean, there's a bound to what can and cannot happen, right? It's not as if an elephant will pop in to existence. Maybe a particle or some small thing pops in for discernable reason, but there's a range of things which are expected within the randomness, or that's not the case?

Very interesting and many thanks for the detail and the visualization aspect, helps a bunch. I recall reading some of this in Hand's Cosmosapiens, but you're wording of it makes it "easy" to picture.

The thing is, if this is true, it looks to me as we're just pushing back the origins question. That is, we have no possible conception as to why any universe began, or if it even makes sense to think so far back to a "first universe" - if it ever existed. But, if the theory is true - which I think it's safe to assume we just don't know - then too bad for our comprehension. It looks to me like Many Worlds on steroids, which would have to be accepted as fact.

I suppose one question that lurks here, which philosophers could comment on a bit, is the idea of causality. I tend to like Galen Strawson's view on this, in which he rejects the regularity theory of causation: that things just happen, for no reason.

I know "reason" is a loaded word, but what he has in mind is, there should be a regularity or a habit for which things happen as they do and not some other way. If there are no "reasons" why, then why have any laws at all? We could say that the next universe over is just a lump of green clay. If things just happen nothing is prevented, I guess. Obviously I'm speaking crazy here, but why does the universe(s) behave in this way?

It's really mind-boggling. I mean, we already have more than enough figuring out stuff here on this tiny planet, to think that there are many universes, well damn. Fascinating.

In my experience very few anti-Semites are pro-Israel. Israel is such a perfect lightening rod that I don't see why anti-Semites would avoid that opportunity. It's just so easy. — BitconnectCarlos

Well take the Evangelicals. Or parts of the far right, like that guy from Norway, Breijvik. The idea is we don't like these Jews, but we like these Arabs even less so let the Jews stay in Israel and take care of the Arabs.

But yes, you are also correct. There is bound to be anti-Semites who hate Israel.

Could you mind citing a few examples? — BitconnectCarlos

You really need sources? I'll give a few. They're mixed in with Radical Islam to make it look less blatant...

Macron:
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/10/2/macron-announces-new-plan-to-regulate-islam-in-france

Trump:
https://www.nilc.org/issues/litigation/trump-tweets-with-muslim-muslims/

Australian Senator:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/15/australian-senator-fraser-anning-criticised-blaming-new-zealand-attack-on-muslim-immigration

And etc.

A lot of criticism of Hamas is racism? Why would you say this about Hamas but not apply it to Israel and anti-Semitism? Radical muslims are universally despised even among other Muslims. — BitconnectCarlos

The idea here is Hamas=Radical Islam, hence everything ugly Hamas does is because of Islam.

The anti-Semitism in the Arab world against Israel, is overwhelmingly due to Israel's history in the region. You know this: the wars with Lebanon and Egypt and Syria, the way Palestinians are treated, etc.

And to pre-empt a comment I know will be coming. Yes, there are legitimate criticisms of radical Islam. it exists and is quite ugly, just look at Saudi Arabia.

But radical Christians started too wars just over 10 years ago, that have not ended in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And radical Jews (settlers) are the main reason as to why Israel is so vilified.

Every religion and group of people have radical parts.

I mean, there's everything. There are anti-Semitic people who praise Israeli and those who do not. And there are those who criticize Israel with no idea of Judaism in mind at all.

Maybe the rest of the world is an exception, though based on what I've seen not really, in that hatred of Arabs and specifically Islam is often stated, by Presidents and Prime Ministers no less. No one in the "West" today would dream of saying 1/10'th of what they say about Arabs to Jews. It would be considered racist if done, and quite correctly.

There is no shortage of criticism of Hamas or radical Islam at all. Some of it has merits, sure. But a lot of it is just racism.

So it goes both ways.

Yes. That's the evangelical dimension to Israel. Likely the most anti-Semitic people in the world are those who "support" Israel. Quite ironic.

And Trump should be commended for saying that, because it's true. There's blood on every states hands. It's just that the bigger the state (generally) the more blood they spill...

:scream:

That's brutal.

But I saw the word "recursion".

The history of the bombings in Japan are quite interesting, and horrifying. There maybe could be some kind of argument that could be made about using it in Hiroshima and it should still be considered a war crime, in my view.

But zero justification at all for Nagasaki. While the US is responsible for the use of the bombs, there should be no doubt at all about that - the Japanese fascist government played a massive part in the tragedy too. The leadership, minus a small dissident camp refused to give up when they knew they lost the war. There's also the factor of using the bomb as showing off vs. the USSR and other things, but that would be good material for another thread.

The idea w/ Israel is that, we'd like to think or at least aspire to the notion that we are being less savage than we used to be. Why bother then with all this rights of prisoners of war and non-killing civilians argument? So states know they have a minimum standard they should abide by, though they rarely do. But in 2021 to have a highly developed, industrial country bombing the crap out of an open air prison all the while starving its residents and then calling it "defense", is something that should not be acceptable.

The reason Israel is singled out, is that there is already a known solution, short term at least, for the conflict: go to resolution 242 and abide by that. The US is also directly responsible for Israel's actions and this can do something about this.

There are other horrors: Yemen, Kashmir, etc., etc. but these are much harder to do anything about.

But yes, you are right, in war, people are like animals, but worse.

Sorry if this question sounds stupid, but when it comes to math, I'm really mentally challenged.

This type of system you are describing, it's a kind of recursive system or a "loopy" system, but it has a "starting point". Is this roughly what you have in mind?

Thanks for the info, some clarification:

So empty space contracted into the big bang?

Is this connected to some of these cyclic big bang theories in which it is postulated that the universe expands and contracts many times?

As I understood it, and apologies if I state it incorrectly, the Big Bang was a moment in which everything in the universe was compacted in a very small point of very high energy.

"Before" that moment, there either was nothing or it's part of a cycle.

We can tell stories about it, but I don't think we have a clue.

We can psychoanalyze them or say that when we dream our brains are at the deepest state of rest or something along those lines, but it says virtually nothing of what "purpose" they have, if any.

It's very interesting. But supremely difficult.

Probably useful to note there is no such thing as time in the universe. There is, on the other hand, how we look at it and attempt to understand. — tim wood

Sure. Just trying to use words to try and make some minimal sense of the things "out there", well aware of the myriad of complications attached to doing this.

And others like Smolin say time is emergent.

If Smolin is correct, it's very hard - if even possible - to think of anything "before" the emergence of time. But one must assume that there wasn't nothing in the sense of absolutely nothing: no energy, no quantum vacuum, etc, prior to the emergence of time.

But if Hawking is correct, then at least time "remains". Though it's very hard to make any sense of any of this.

:clap:

Yes. Also had a bit over half a decade of such experience, powerful ones at that. The only thing they taught is how powerful the mind/brain is, but it did not offer me an iota of evidence of anything else. These types of experiences tend to support whatever you already tend to believe in.

It may be possible that there was an initial moment and yet time extends infinitely into the past. Think time dilation and the Big Bang. Just ruminating, pay no mind. — jgill

If the Big Bang is true and complete, how can we speak of time before that? It would be analogous to saying what's a feature of Earth that is higher than Everest.

What did you have in mind with time dilation?

So, when talking about the timeline of the universe, which part of it are you saying would be infinite, and how would that imply that “we could not be here”? — Amalac

I'm not sure I follow completely, I may be, but I may not be. I think that part of the problem may be that there's our innate conceptions of space and time, or spacetime if we are to incorporate modern physics and spacetime outside our conception of it.

This may be the wrong way to state this...

I think that by now, we should try to distinguish our conceptions of spacetime with spacetime in the universe. Absent human beings, strictly speaking, yes, we can't speak of time "elapsing" or as I prefer to say "passing", as these terms must imply our conceptions of them.

But if there is spacetime outside our conceptions of it, as appears to be the case then I think that in order to speak at all, we are forced to use our human vocabulary. Perhaps we can speak of one infinite span of time, or an infinite number of events, this would go on "backwards" forever.

The time in the universe, on this thought experiment, goes back forever. If it does, how can we get to any point at all, given that an infinite time preceded our species?

Why is it that we had to begin somewhere?
Doesn't that beg the question by already assuming that there must have been a beginning in time? — Amalac

We as a species evolved at some point in evolutionary history. It's from that perspective that we began as a species. It does not presuppose a beginning of time in the universe, but it does presuppose a beginning of time as we conceive it. In that respect I'd stick my neck out and say that we "began" once we had our conception of time.

since in the very definition of time elapsing, a beginning and an end of the lapse of time are pressupposed. — Amalac

In our conception of time yes. I think it differs in the external world.

But I could be way off. Again, just throwing out ideas.

The statement that the universe cannot be infinite towards the past because that would imply going through or traversing an infinite number of events to get to the present seems false to me, since it seems to assume that in traveling such a series of events one goes through or traverses from an initial moment to the present, while this infinite universe towards the past by definition has no initial moment.

If, on the contrary, the journey begins at some point in the past which is not an initial moment, it does not matter how much one goes back in the timeline, the events and time from that moment to the present will always be finite, and there is therefore no impossibility in a universe whose time is infinite to the past. — Amalac

I'm aware that you used Kant in the discussion. I'm more interested in the thought experiment itself of time going "back" infinitely. It's been in the back of my mind recently and I was going to start a thread on the topic, but then saw this one.

Maybe this is cheating and is probably also quite ignorant but I'd like to put aside what physics says and just take the topic as is, meaning, if time is infinite and had no beginning, how could we be here?

Let's me take a stab at your argument, for my own benefit. As I understand what you're saying: even if time had no beginning it would not matter because we are finite, so we can place ourselves anywhere on the timeline and no be bothered about how we got here.

Isn't the counterargument here that in order to get to now, we had to begin somewhere. But if time is infinite, how could we place ourselves here? An infinite amount of time has gone on before we got here.

Either a part of infinity is finite or if not, it is also infinite. If a part of infinity is also infinite, regardless of not having starting conditions, we could not be here.

But this raises more problems, if a part of infinity is finite, wouldn't we have to go through an infinite amount of time to reach a portion of infinity which is not. How's that possible?

Unless I'm stuck with a linear idea of infinity.. Sorry for the length, but I'm curious about a reply. It's likely muddled thinking on my part.

I think it was Nagel who argued somewhere that experience was a net positive. It's an interesting idea and perhaps quite plausible.

On one hand, all else being equal, being able to have experience and being marveled at the puzzle which is existence is a luxury afforded to the living, which is but a small potential of everyone that could have been born that wasn't. It just so happened that one specific sperm, as opposed to another one, fertilized an egg and here we are.

The problem, on the other hand, is that the end of the journey is sad for others. Or most frequently. Sure, a few lucky ones live a long life and get to say they did everything they wanted in life and are grateful for that, but that's a minority of a minority.

Of course, death doesn't suck for the person who went through it, that's over. But for those who remain death really stings in a bad way.

So yes, experience can be a net positive compared to the alternative. Although, if someone has no existence, there is nothing to miss - good or bad. So it's a difficult question.

:up:

Sure and it's probably impossible to get out of the intellectual context in which one lives and see things "objectively", standing atop the highest clearest mountain if you will.

As for that specific Harari quote, it's not too clear in the sense that I've never really understood what people mean when they say "science says", as if "science" could be separated from the scientists who engage in these projects. It's an obvious comment but there are all kinds of scientists who believe in all kinds of things. Granted one can see a tendency in them to be, say, non-religious or "hard nosed" but this is a tendency.

Philosophy is important in that it can help us make sense of the world. I want be as inclusive as I can be when I use the term - which is why I insist on the philosophic aspects of art.

But yes, the problem of culture and ideas is fascinating.

Their appearance is certainly an illusion as well cannot perceive them at all without "projecting them onto an imaginary plane" — hypericin

We'd only be left with the equations that lead us to believe particles exist and behave in such a manner. So mathematics would be exempt from illusions, somehow. If, however, you'd say that even math is illusory then we just make everything up. There'd be no external world.

Both objects and processes exist independently of anything that may or may not perceive them, this is what I meant by "stable reality" — hypericin

I don't think this is true of objects. Processes, yes, I'd agree.

I don't have a problem with this. — hypericin

Why not use "representations" or "presentations"? These words seem to me to be less loaded, as illusion tends to be associated with something false.

Or my color might be your sound, or it might be some other form you can't conceive of. As long as qualia masks reality in some stable manner, it can take any form at all and be functional — hypericin

Yeah, that's possible.

A perception is illusory to the degree that its reality does not match its appearance — hypericin

How do particles resemble how they appear? Or DNA?

A hallucination is that which has no stable reality outside of subjective manifestation. — hypericin

But this raises more questions, what has a "stable reality"? It looks to me as if we should be thinking in terms of processes instead of objects. It's fine to speak of "stable things", while keeping in mind that everything is constantly changing.

is completely private, and so has no reality outside of our subjective experience of it. It is hallucinatory. — hypericin

Sure, qualia are private, I agree. I'm really not intending to reply with questions, but I just would like clarification. If all our subjective experiences are hallucinations, what do we do with what we ordinarily take to be hallucination? We'd have to say that it is a hallucination within a hallucination or something along these lines.

But there are an infinite number of such stable mappings. And the choice of mapping is functionally irrelevant. — hypericin

Yes, I think you're correct in terms of having an "infinite number of... mappings". Nevertheless the choice of mapping has to matter in some fundamental respect. If we're on some mountains and don't map a cliff, we'd die. So at some points our mapping converges in some crucial areas.

Therefore I think it is likely we all experience wildly different private hallucinations. — hypericin

I'd just call them experiences. But in terms of the variety involved and the subtlety found in them, it's unlikely two people would have the exact same experience. But in some cases, they have to be "similar enough."

Why should we assume physical states even exist? What evidence do you have for the existence of the non-conscious stuff these physical states are supposedly made of? — RogueAI

Most of my body is non-conscious. We can argue about chairs having or not having experience, but I don't see good reasons to think chairs have experience.

Think of some music. Is there music playing in your skull right now? Does your mind seem to have weight? — RogueAI

I am thinking of music. I don't know which parts of my brain are involved in experience. But I know that if a person lack a brain, they won't be thinking much.

Non-conscious stuff doesn't produce consciousness. It's a category error that leads to absurdities. — RogueAI

It does. Our failure to make sense of it is irrelevant. Most of us don't make sense of QM, it's inconceivable, but it happens.

Likewise, our failure to understand how matter produces experience is an example of our cognitive limitations, which must exist.

Pretty much every other option is better than brain=mental states. — RogueAI

Here I agree. Not because I don't think mind is an outcome of brain, but because there's so much involved in experiencing the world and our state of knowledge is so rudimentary that we can't say, nor does it make sense to say, mind=brain.

It doesn't follow though, that mind is not physical.

That premise rests on the assumption that mental states aren't physical states. There is no reason to believe that physical stuff isn't mental stuff. There's no other intelligible option given what we know.

So the case presented of stubbing your toe while looking at the sunset can't be stated in the terms because, absent modified physical stuff found in brains, you couldn't even stub a toe or look at a sunset. There would be nothing there.

The reason it is a one way street is because mind is not opposed to physical stuff, it is physical stuff. It's the physical stuff of which we are most acquainted with in merely having experience.

So even if you couldn't get a working brain from phenomenal qualities, you can certainly create completely new and unique aspects of physical stuff just by thinking about anything - flying fish, Paris, a golden mountain, or anything you can think of.

There's much more to say about this, such as the topic of intentionality, the property of mind which is about the postulated objects we experience in the world. Without such a property, we couldn't even construct a world.

So in short, the dichotomy between mind and matter doesn't hold. Physical stuff just "works" the way that is does, which is astonishing enough as it is.

But, I do think that many people, in general, see philosophy as a rather abstract and futile activity, but it would be interesting if someone were able to provide evidence of such opinion and I am not able to do so at present. — Jack Cummins

Excellent topic.

It's a bit hard to answer. I mean besides saying "love of wisdom", defining what philosophy is, can be quite difficult. I think we ought to be mindful that during Classical Greece, there really wasn't much distinction between philosophy and anything else.

The difference between science and philosophy only got articulated in the mid-19th century, so the word we are using now, is rather new given its history. I mean existentialism is very different from empiricism as exemplified by Locke and Hume, for example.

Bearing all this is mind, when I use the word "philosophy" in a broad sense, outside the forum or outside technical discussions, I talk about "deep questions" on "important topics" which do not need, necessarily, much by the way of technical knowledge. Given this "constraint", then novels, movies, music and everything else can contain very good philosophy. And on this view, philosophy is more important then ever, whatever else the person whom you're talking with may say about it.

Not that technical questions in philosophy as often discussed here aren't important, I think they are, but the satisfaction gained from them is from the mere pleasure of contemplating and discussing these ideas than they are about "practicality". On this later term, much can be said. But if taken to the extreme then all that matters is money and work.

That's not a life at all.

At least that's how I view this.

Liberal-National party, when it got into office, it dismantled that legislation, which was working as intended and would have greatly contributed toward reducing carbon emissions at practically no visible cost to anyone. — Wayfarer

:roll:

The really poisonous, indeed treacherous, thing that the Conservatives did was politicise climate-change policies for their own advantage, running a scare campaign on the 'great big new tax'. — Wayfarer

I assume that "lobbying" in Australia isn't as transparent as it is in the US, essentially legal bribery, out in the open. Nevertheless, those changes you indicate must have come from coal and traditional energy sectors who just want money now, without thinking about what happens a few years down the road. These "neoliberals" have this sophisticated game of politicizing things which should be obvious under the cunningly labeled term "freedom." And whose against that?

After the catastrophic bushfire season in 2019-2020 the public finally accepted the reality of having to deal with climate change. But you still get the sense the conservative side is being dragged kicking and screaming (with some exceptions at State Government levels.) — Wayfarer

That's very good to hear. I was reading or maybe I was watching some news from your own ABC that some firefighters during those bush fires were basically accepting that the Australian public simply assumed that this was going to be the new normal. Thankfully it isn't so...

https://reneweconomy.com.au/gillard-on-climate-action-it-was-done-and-we-can-do-it-again-in-the-future-63753/

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/the-recent-history-of-australia-s-climate-change-wars — Wayfarer

:up:

Thanks

Wow, you guys/gals have really kept this thing alive, I'm quite glad.

Pertinent to this discussion is the apparent fact that Netanyahu might finally lose power in Israel. If this amounts to anything practical on the ground is yet to be seen. Likely not. But, that will also depend on how firm the US is in dealing with Israel.

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/elections/LIVE-lapid-aims-to-announce-new-government-with-bennett-at-the-helm-1.9866751

For all the problems it has as a country, and every country has problems that's evident, I sure am jealous of people living there.

Sure, I've seen some figures in the right say some pretty stupid things about Climate Change. But's that a standard now, basically no right wing figures are particularly interesting. Say what you want about the old school Austrians, but Hayek and Schumpeter were much more sophisticated than almost anything on the right now.

Not that labor is amazing, that's another topic...

Ah cool, keep me updated on that, it will be interesting to read.

Insert good reasons in my head.