Global warming, economics, and chauvinism

Talk about general stuff that interests you (that doesn't fit anywhere else).
Post Reply
User avatar
DrZoidberg
Posts: 204
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2017 7:50 am

Global warming, economics, and chauvinism

Post by DrZoidberg » Sat Nov 18, 2017 8:05 am

This was split off from the My insanity thread. Jobar.

[quote=""justme""]
DrZoidberg;680490 wrote:
Shake;680413 wrote:
I was never able to feel the part of a man and couldn't get the masculine attitudes of the supreme alpha male. It simply felt ridiculous waste of time. I always surrounded myself with girls and women because I felt comfortable.
Not even all cis heterosexual males are "alpha male" types. There are times when I'd rather be around women too, and it has nothing to do with my attraction to them. I don't have many close male friends nearby at this point in my life. Some of the ones I do tend to wind up being around are generally good, but moderately sexist and racist at times, and being someone who avoids confrontation I tend to just try to shift the subject or just walk away.

Anyway, I'm sure I can't imagine what you're going through, but I hope you are able to find some level of peace and comfort in your life. I agree with others about being yourself and also seeking out the help, guidance, and community of others like yourself to help you get by.
I think Alpha males are supposed to be confident? Racism or sexism is signs of insecurity, isn't it? So anybody racist or sexist is hardly an alpha male, right?

To me an alpha male is a man who is calm, confident, listens, pays attention, introspects, uses his power to lift up those around him and has the ability, when necessary, to take control of a situation. Their defining characteristics is discipline and humility.
This is what I'm thinking, but Alpha males can be control freeks, who are in my opinion are bullies that memick alpha males to cover for their insecurity.

If you remember right the last great episode of racism started after President Obama took office, but I'm not sure wither most of it was because he was a black man or because our economy was being torn apart. It would seem to me that fear of loosing their income would make some people less open to sharing what resources we have and out of sheer tribalism, those people that these people would see as foreigners would see them as rivals to their own survival.

Man gets very primative when their bellies are empty.[/QUOTE]

Control freakishness is also a sign of insecurity = not alpha males. I don't think the problem is alpha males at all. But men who try to be, but aren't. For example, very muscular men are almost always that big because they are extremely insecure. Almost only insecure guys are motivated and willing to pay the price to get that big. Still we associate it with being an alpha male.

I think you are correct that tolerance correlates with affluence and stability. For example, in each country where the west transitioned from an agrarian economy to an industrial economy it sparked a rise in religious fundamentalism, political extremism and general chauvinism. This demographic shift where all the old traditions and patterns of life don't apply any more is very traumatic for people. So they grab onto simple solutions. We got two world wars out of it. We got communism in Russia, Nazism, evangelical Christianity and the KKK. Once things became stable again these lost appeal.

In the Middle-East they're undergoing the same transition now, with predictable results. Japan had the same. China the same. Africa. It seems to be a universal pattern.

This makes me very worried about global warming. That's another major transition for our world. Sooner or later. It would suck if all that tolerance and social progress goes out the window because of bad planning.
Last edited by Jobar on Tue Nov 21, 2017 2:25 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"Sorry, you must have been boring"
/Dr Zoidberg

User avatar
justme
Posts: 5994
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 12:31 am

Post by justme » Sat Nov 18, 2017 8:47 am

[quote=""DrZoidberg""]
justme;680501 wrote:
DrZoidberg;680490 wrote:
Shake;680413 wrote: Not even all cis heterosexual males are "alpha male" types. There are times when I'd rather be around women too, and it has nothing to do with my attraction to them. I don't have many close male friends nearby at this point in my life. Some of the ones I do tend to wind up being around are generally good, but moderately sexist and racist at times, and being someone who avoids confrontation I tend to just try to shift the subject or just walk away.

Anyway, I'm sure I can't imagine what you're going through, but I hope you are able to find some level of peace and comfort in your life. I agree with others about being yourself and also seeking out the help, guidance, and community of others like yourself to help you get by.
I think Alpha males are supposed to be confident? Racism or sexism is signs of insecurity, isn't it? So anybody racist or sexist is hardly an alpha male, right?

To me an alpha male is a man who is calm, confident, listens, pays attention, introspects, uses his power to lift up those around him and has the ability, when necessary, to take control of a situation. Their defining characteristics is discipline and humility.
This is what I'm thinking, but Alpha males can be control freeks, who are in my opinion are bullies that memick alpha males to cover for their insecurity.

If you remember right the last great episode of racism started after President Obama took office, but I'm not sure wither most of it was because he was a black man or because our economy was being torn apart. It would seem to me that fear of loosing their income would make some people less open to sharing what resources we have and out of sheer tribalism, those people that these people would see as foreigners would see them as rivals to their own survival.

Man gets very primative when their bellies are empty.
Control freakishness is also a sign of insecurity = not alpha males. I don't think the problem is alpha males at all. But men who try to be, but aren't. For example, very muscular men are almost always that big because they are extremely insecure. Almost only insecure guys are motivated and willing to pay the price to get that big. Still we associate it with being an alpha male.

I think you are correct that tolerance correlates with affluence and stability. For example, in each country where the west transitioned from an agrarian economy to an industrial economy it sparked a rise in religious fundamentalism, political extremism and general chauvinism. This demographic shift where all the old traditions and patterns of life don't apply any more is very traumatic for people. So they grab onto simple solutions. We got two world wars out of it. We got communism in Russia, Nazism, evangelical Christianity and the KKK. Once things became stable again these lost appeal.

In the Middle-East they're undergoing the same transition now, with predictable results. Japan had the same. China the same. Africa. It seems to be a universal pattern.

This makes me very worried about global warming. That's another major transition for our world. Sooner or later. It would suck if all that tolerance and social progress goes out the window because of bad planning.[/QUOTE]

I have freinds on the right you can't even talk to about Global Warming. Most just think it is a left wing plot to diminish America's quote/unqoute sacred place in the world. That just blows my mind when I hear that. They are more worried about world prestige and are willing to blow billions of dollars on defense when we are inundated with social issues that are taring us apart.

That's like building a stone wall around a termite infested building. HELLO, we can't have a consolidated front if we aren't consolidated and the way to become that is to have everybody on the same social standing which will never be with the present social situation. With Trump we are going backwards, so, in a way, they are unraveling their own agenda from inside out.

As for global warming, I think the main thing is fear and we need to assuage that by creating a viable source of renewable energy that is cheep and marketable, that those on the right can see working, so we can ween people off oil and coal.

We also need to train and employ those people who feed their families on oil and coal on other means of employment, so that they won't fear being insolvent. I think the oil industry plays on those fears by telling everyone how stable they are.

I don't know if the left has addressed the employment issue yet, but if they want to jump a huge hurdle, they need to. Badly

I think the Democratic party shoots themselves in the foot at the worst times imaginable. I don't know why this is, but I think it has to do with second guessing themselves to try and appease that part of America that will never be for them.
Last edited by justme on Sat Nov 18, 2017 9:09 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
DrZoidberg
Posts: 204
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2017 7:50 am

Post by DrZoidberg » Sat Nov 18, 2017 9:25 am

[quote=""justme""]
As for global warming, I think the main thing is fear and we need to assuage that by creating a viable source of renewable energy that is cheep and marketable, that those on the right can see working, so we can ween people off oil and coal.
[/quote]

But we'll never find an energy source as practical as oil. That's just not going to happen. That's basic science. And that translates to efficiency in the market. We are going to have to get used to less stuff. We all need to tighten our belts. That's just the reality of the situation. Either we do it now, or we do it when everything goes tits up. But its going to happen, sooner or later. Either we do it in a controlled fashion. Or we do it when the planet does it to us. That might not be pretty.

[quote=""justme""]
We also need to train and employ those people who feed their families on oil and coal on other means of employment, so that they won't fear being insolvent. I think the oil industry plays on those fears by telling everyone how stable they are.

I don't know if the left has addressed the employment issue yet, but if they want to jump a huge hurdle, they need to. Badly
[/quote]

We're right at the cusp of the robot revolution. Research in AI and autonomous systems have gone forward with leaps and bounds. You know how Trump keeps talking about USA losing manufacturing jobs to Mexico and China. That's complete bullshit. USA lost all those manufacturing jobs to robots. That's not a trend that is going to be reversed. Those jobs are gone.

One of the most common jobs right now is trucker and taxi driver. Self driving cars are now ready and awaiting employment. My brother worked at Scania with their self driving car division. He was a researcher. They've moved on now to other stuff. Those are all ready and waiting to be allowed onto the roads.

Robots will increasingly take over the service sector. My robot vacuum cleaner is ten years old. I'm never again going to vacuum clean my own floors again. The evolution here is one way.

What that means for the jobs market is that in the near future we'll have a 95% unemployment rate. Most people will be completely unnecessary in the jobs market. That's a realistic assessment of the future.

Add to that the lost jobs in the coal and oil industry. I don't think finding these people new jobs is realistic.
"Sorry, you must have been boring"
/Dr Zoidberg

User avatar
justme
Posts: 5994
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 12:31 am

Post by justme » Sat Nov 18, 2017 1:20 pm

[quote=""DrZoidberg""]
justme;680570 wrote: As for global warming, I think the main thing is fear and we need to assuage that by creating a viable source of renewable energy that is cheep and marketable, that those on the right can see working, so we can ween people off oil and coal.
But we'll never find an energy source as practical as oil. That's just not going to happen. That's basic science. And that translates to efficiency in the market. We are going to have to get used to less stuff. We all need to tighten our belts. That's just the reality of the situation. Either we do it now, or we do it when everything goes tits up. But its going to happen, sooner or later. Either we do it in a controlled fashion. Or we do it when the planet does it to us. That might not be pretty.

[quote=""justme""]
We also need to train and employ those people who feed their families on oil and coal on other means of employment, so that they won't fear being insolvent. I think the oil industry plays on those fears by telling everyone how stable they are.

I don't know if the left has addressed the employment issue yet, but if they want to jump a huge hurdle, they need to. Badly
[/quote]

We're right at the cusp of the robot revolution. Research in AI and autonomous systems have gone forward with leaps and bounds. You know how Trump keeps talking about USA losing manufacturing jobs to Mexico and China. That's complete bullshit. USA lost all those manufacturing jobs to robots. That's not a trend that is going to be reversed. Those jobs are gone.

One of the most common jobs right now is trucker and taxi driver. Self driving cars are now ready and awaiting employment. My brother worked at Scania with their self driving car division. He was a researcher. They've moved on now to other stuff. Those are all ready and waiting to be allowed onto the roads.

Robots will increasingly take over the service sector. My robot vacuum cleaner is ten years old. I'm never again going to vacuum clean my own floors again. The evolution here is one way.

What that means for the jobs market is that in the near future we'll have a 95% unemployment rate. Most people will be completely unnecessary in the jobs market. That's a realistic assessment of the future.

Add to that the lost jobs in the coal and oil industry. I don't think finding these people new jobs is realistic.[/QUOTE]

Well, I'm looking at a Capitalistic society getting used to less when the citizens are so addicted to their shiny bobbles that please and excite them. That would be interesting to say the least. Like a nursery whose sudenly after a long absence of workers, actually bring in staff that will put some order to the place. I can see a certain amount of problems with this in the short term.



What is to be done with the unemployed then, since they are voters and will effect the outcome of any election. Not only that, but fear of others loosing their jobs will radiate out from there to other sectors of the economy.

The work ethic in the US is pretty well established and will drive a far greater fear through the country. I think that might have been the very thing that took President Trump over the top and unfortunately put him where he is today. I just hope there is enough adults in the room to keep him from taring everything to bits before the next election.

One possible avenue that might answer the emplyment question is Universal basic income, but I remember listening hearing something about a documentary about the beginning of the Welfare system. People were also hesitant to make use of that, when it first appeared because of the same work ethic. I remember that the government had to take out adds to change minds.

Sometimes the ego and a persons ideals towards self esteem become a trap within themselves.

I remember being told about a distant relative that was so against accepting charity that he died from something that he didn't have the money to go to the hospital to cure and wouldn't accept money from the church. I'd say that's a Darwin award right there, but there are still people out there like that and those people have loved ones that multiply their own particular brand of insanity.
Last edited by justme on Sat Nov 18, 2017 1:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
justme
Posts: 5994
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 12:31 am

Post by justme » Sat Nov 18, 2017 1:40 pm

[quote=""DrZoidberg""]
justme;680570 wrote: As for global warming, I think the main thing is fear and we need to assuage that by creating a viable source of renewable energy that is cheep and marketable, that those on the right can see working, so we can ween people off oil and coal.
But we'll never find an energy source as practical as oil. That's just not going to happen. That's basic science. And that translates to efficiency in the market. We are going to have to get used to less stuff. We all need to tighten our belts. That's just the reality of the situation. Either we do it now, or we do it when everything goes tits up. But its going to happen, sooner or later. Either we do it in a controlled fashion. Or we do it when the planet does it to us. That might not be pretty.

[quote=""justme""]
We also need to train and employ those people who feed their families on oil and coal on other means of employment, so that they won't fear being insolvent. I think the oil industry plays on those fears by telling everyone how stable they are.

I don't know if the left has addressed the employment issue yet, but if they want to jump a huge hurdle, they need to. Badly
[/quote]

We're right at the cusp of the robot revolution. Research in AI and autonomous systems have gone forward with leaps and bounds. You know how Trump keeps talking about USA losing manufacturing jobs to Mexico and China. That's complete bullshit. USA lost all those manufacturing jobs to robots. That's not a trend that is going to be reversed. Those jobs are gone.

One of the most common jobs right now is trucker and taxi driver. Self driving cars are now ready and awaiting employment. My brother worked at Scania with their self driving car division. He was a researcher. They've moved on now to other stuff. Those are all ready and waiting to be allowed onto the roads.

Robots will increasingly take over the service sector. My robot vacuum cleaner is ten years old. I'm never again going to vacuum clean my own floors again. The evolution here is one way.

What that means for the jobs market is that in the near future we'll have a 95% unemployment rate. Most people will be completely unnecessary in the jobs market. That's a realistic assessment of the future.

Add to that the lost jobs in the coal and oil industry. I don't think finding these people new jobs is realistic.[/QUOTE]

I am looking at a Capitalist society with a citizenery that is wholy addicted to their precious little bobbles that aren't going to take Dealing with less, lightly.
This will be a seachange in just about every walk of life and I don't see it happening without blowback. Those on the left will be better suited intellectually, but those on the right and posibly those in the middle will react much as they do gun control.

I can see the storm clouds brewing on this one.

As fork the unemplied, what ultimately are we to do with them since they are voters and will effect the outcome of any election. Not only that, but fear of others loosing their jobs will radiate out from there to other sectors of the economy.

The work ethic in the US is pretty well established and will drive a far greater fear through the country. I think that might have been the very thing that took President Trump over the top and unfortunately put him where he is today. I just hope there is enough adults in the room to keep him from taring everything to bits before the next election.

One possible avenue that might answer the emplyment question is Universal basic income, but I remember listening hearing something about a documentary about the beginning of the Welfare system. People were also hesitant to make use of that, when it first appeared because of the same work ethic. I remember that the government had to take out adds to change minds.

Sometimes the ego and a persons ideals towards self esteem become a trap within themselves.

I remember being told about a distant relative that was so against accepting charity that he died from something that he didn't have the money to go to the hospital to cure and wouldn't accept money from the church. I'd say that's a Darwin award right there, but there are still people out there like that and those people have loved ones that multiply their own particular brand of insanity.

User avatar
DrZoidberg
Posts: 204
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2017 7:50 am

Post by DrZoidberg » Mon Nov 20, 2017 9:39 am

[quote=""justme""]
Well, I'm looking at a Capitalistic society getting used to less when the citizens are so addicted to their shiny bobbles that please and excite them. That would be interesting to say the least. Like a nursery whose sudenly after a long absence of workers, actually bring in staff that will put some order to the place. I can see a certain amount of problems with this in the short term.


What is to be done with the unemployed then, since they are voters and will effect the outcome of any election. Not only that, but fear of others loosing their jobs will radiate out from there to other sectors of the economy.
[/quote]

I don't think anybody can answer that.

[quote=""justme""]
The work ethic in the US is pretty well established and will drive a far greater fear through the country. I think that might have been the very thing that took President Trump over the top and unfortunately put him where he is today. I just hope there is enough adults in the room to keep him from taring everything to bits before the next election.
[/quote]

I don't understand, what you mean by work ethic? Trump was a useless businessman, doesn't seem to know what a job is, and by the looks of it isn't doing the one one job he has.

[quote=""justme""]
One possible avenue that might answer the emplyment question is Universal basic income, but I remember listening hearing something about a documentary about the beginning of the Welfare system. People were also hesitant to make use of that, when it first appeared because of the same work ethic. I remember that the government had to take out adds to change minds.
[/quote]

I don't think anybody wants to be an welfare. We all like to work. I think the lazy layabout who lives off welfare is a myth.

We have tried universal basic income. I think it was Nixon who tried something like it in the 70'ies? There's also a bunch of Indian casinos that have made it possible in Indian reserves. In Australia among aborigines. We have data on it.

Everywhere it's been tried it's led to absolute disaster. Every conceivable social problem has multiplied. People have not been happy. I think people need to have jobs. They need to feel useful. People were happy in the Soviet Union. Even though they could afford little and had little political freedom. They still had jobs, and felt useful.

I don't think there are good answers. But also, I don't think there's need to worry either. It will be an extremely affluent society. Political change is possible if there's wealth. We can just keep evolving and changing until we find something that works.
"Sorry, you must have been boring"
/Dr Zoidberg

User avatar
justme
Posts: 5994
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 12:31 am

Post by justme » Mon Nov 20, 2017 10:52 pm

[quote=""DrZoidberg""]

I don't think anybody can answer that. [/quote]

This is something that really needs looked at because fear of not being able to feed their families is what the Republicans has always used when dealing with Global warming. This is not the only issue they have used, but Jobs was the rallying cry that, I think a lot of Americans grasp onto when they turned to President Trump in the last election.


I don't understand, what you mean by work ethic? Trump was a useless businessman, doesn't seem to know what a job is, and by the looks of it isn't doing the one one job he has.

It's not what he knows or doesn't know that mattered. President Trump's main dog whistle was about getting jobs to return to the US. He used every issue he could, including imigration to pound in the idea that he was here to make America qoute/unqoute GREAT, meaning prosperous again. It was Americas Work ethic that he was playing on. He had the answers that many were looking for, because he knew that a lot of people on the right had lost all trust in their politicians.

I don't think anybody wants to be an welfare. We all like to work. I think the lazy layabout who lives off welfare is a myth.

We have tried universal basic income. I think it was Nixon who tried something like it in the 70'ies? There's also a bunch of Indian casinos that have made it possible in Indian reserves. In Australia among aborigines. We have data on it.

Everywhere it's been tried it's led to absolute disaster. Every conceivable social problem has multiplied. People have not been happy. I think people need to have jobs. They need to feel useful. People were happy in the Soviet Union. Even though they could afford little and had little political freedom. They still had jobs, and felt useful.

I don't think there are good answers. But also, I don't think there's need to worry either. It will be an extremely affluent society. Political change is possible if there's wealth. We can just keep evolving and changing until we find something that works.

I thank you for that. One of the reasons I come here is to get honest answers to my questions and you've been brutally honest and I appreciate that. Thank you and have a great day.

User avatar
DrZoidberg
Posts: 204
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2017 7:50 am

Post by DrZoidberg » Tue Nov 21, 2017 8:24 am

[quote=""justme""]
DrZoidberg;680666 wrote:
I don't think anybody can answer that.
This is something that really needs looked at because fear of not being able to feed their families is what the Republicans has always used when dealing with Global warming. This is not the only issue they have used, but Jobs was the rallying cry that, I think a lot of Americans grasp onto when they turned to President Trump in the last election.
[/QUOTE]

We won't have any problems feeding anyone. People are having less and less children. And robots are a hell of a lot more efficient workers. In spite of having to be powered they'll use less energy than humans, just because we use a lot of energy just moving ourselves around.

The problem won't be the existence of food. The problem will be moving that food from those who have it to those who don't. It won't work in the capitalist paradigm, because robots will also replace humans in the service sector. Wherever robots are introduced, after an initial shock, people are almost always more comfortable with the robot than a human service professional. That's true, even for stuff like, therapists. That doesn't make employment prospects looking good for anyone really. Unless you're an engineer, you're shit out of luck.

[quote=""justme""]
I don't understand, what you mean by work ethic? Trump was a useless businessman, doesn't seem to know what a job is, and by the looks of it isn't doing the one one job he has.
It's not what he knows or doesn't know that mattered. President Trump's main dog whistle was about getting jobs to return to the US. He used every issue he could, including imigration to pound in the idea that he was here to make America qoute/unqoute GREAT, meaning prosperous again. It was Americas Work ethic that he was playing on. He had the answers that many were looking for, because he knew that a lot of people on the right had lost all trust in their politicians.
[/quote]

The problem isn't what he knows, but what American voters knows. Aparently, not that much. He's just a classic fascist. Populist. Saying stuff that sounds good but that anybody who knows anything see right through. So clearly a majority Americans weren't able to. That is worrying.

He's just doing the same shit Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Atatürk and the rest of them did. Telling people any nonsense they want to hear, but completely lacking in any plan. And since his promises and world view are ridiculous they make a bad situation worse. It's a spiral that can only lead to increasing instability, ending in either disaster or dictatorship. Often both.

There's plenty of historical precedence for what Trump is doing and has done. The alarming thing is that Americans fought this way of thinking in a world war and have now forgotten all that completely.
"Sorry, you must have been boring"
/Dr Zoidberg

User avatar
Jobar
Posts: 26251
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:42 pm
Location: Georgia

Post by Jobar » Tue Nov 21, 2017 2:39 pm

Luckily Trump is nowhere near as cunning, industrious, and foresightful as were any of the dictators of the twentieth century, and there's a lot of opposition to him throughout society. He's a really shitty politician, clumsy and clueless in wielding authority.

But I agree that with him in power, nothing good will get done by government. But don't underestimate the power of the private sector, and the influence of economics; for instance, look at how many solar power installations are being built, now that they are cheap enough to be a better investment to power companies than coal or nuclear.

User avatar
justme
Posts: 5994
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 12:31 am

Post by justme » Tue Nov 21, 2017 2:53 pm

[quote=""Jobar""]Luckily Trump is nowhere near as cunning, industrious, and foresightful as were any of the dictators of the twentieth century, and there's a lot of opposition to him throughout society. He's a really shitty politician, clumsy and clueless in wielding authority.

But I agree that with him in power, nothing good will get done by government. But don't underestimate the power of the private sector, and the influence of economics; for instance, look at how many solar power installations are being built, now that they are cheap enough to be a better investment to power companies than coal or nuclear.[/quote]

We need to take back, at least the Senate in 2018 to put a road block in his way. Hopfully the disarray with the Republicans will open a door for us.

User avatar
DrZoidberg
Posts: 204
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2017 7:50 am

Post by DrZoidberg » Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:29 pm

[quote=""Jobar""]Luckily Trump is nowhere near as cunning, industrious, and foresightful as were any of the dictators of the twentieth century, and there's a lot of opposition to him throughout society. He's a really shitty politician, clumsy and clueless in wielding authority.

But I agree that with him in power, nothing good will get done by government.
[/quote]

I think the only thing that protects us from Trump seizing power is that the American president, relatively, is a weak political leader. Those founding fathers did that right.

[quote=""Jobar""]
But don't underestimate the power of the private sector, and the influence of economics; for instance, look at how many solar power installations are being built, now that they are cheap enough to be a better investment to power companies than coal or nuclear.[/quote]

Hmm... don't agree. There's just no competition to oil and coal. Not only in the energy that they contain, but in how simple it is to handle and use.

There's just nothing even close to it. Going off oil and coal means accepting a drop in quality of life. You'll be able to buy less stuff. Your food will be shittier. There's just no other option. Not even hypothetically. To power all of USA with solar you've had to cover about a percent of USA in panels. Just imagine the cost in maintaining that. That's astronomically expensive. Sticking them in deserts is a non-option since the sand grinds the surface opaque. It just comes down to money. Or rather accepting you'll have less of it. I think the only realistic solution to going off oil and coal is nuclear. But even that will mean a lower standard of living.

Capitalism/free market can't solve this. Nor can it be solved without all the worlds countries cooperating. It's the tragedy of the commons. Nobody likes handing over power to other countries. Which is what we're doing if only we go carbon neutral, and they don't. Either all of us do it at the same time, or nobody does.

And it is a direct link between the price of the fuel you use and how wealthy you get. The developing world has a valid complaint. The west got rich by exploiting that oil. And that's why the west is still richer. Compound interest and all that. Not the only reason of course. But it is a big part of the explanation. Now the developing world wants to share in the western lifestyle, even though they came late to the party. I can't see how this conflict can be resolved.

I genuinely think that most people in the west are not comfortable with getting lifestyles comparable to those in the developing world. I think it's a political dead end.

BTW, The Paris agreement wasn't to cut carbon emissions. The Paris agreement was an attempt to decrease the rate at which carbon emission are increasing. But it's still increasing. The goal of the Paris agreement was incredibly modest. Yet, Trump wanted nothing of it.
"Sorry, you must have been boring"
/Dr Zoidberg

User avatar
lpetrich
Posts: 14453
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:53 pm
Location: Lebanon, OR, USA

Post by lpetrich » Sat Nov 25, 2017 10:26 am

Some renewable-energy enthusiast sites:
Cleantech News — Solar, Wind, EV News (#1 Source) | CleanTechnica
Renewable Energy World - News, Resources, Companies, Jobs and more

But it is evident that renewable energy is not just hydroelectricity anymore -- and that it has become a strong challenger to coal and natural gas for electricity generation.

It's rather revealing what they don't talk about very much. Synthetic vehicle fuels: synfuels. These can be made with renewable energy, by electrolyzing water and combining it with carbon dioxide in the Fischer-Tropsch reaction. Synfuels are still too expensive to successfully challenge petroleum-derived vehicle fuels, but I think that they will get there eventually. Synthetic motor oils often outperform petroleum-derived ones, for instance. That's because their composition is much better controlled.

User avatar
lpetrich
Posts: 14453
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:53 pm
Location: Lebanon, OR, USA

Post by lpetrich » Sat Nov 25, 2017 10:39 am

[quote=""DrZoidberg""]
Jobar;680785 wrote:Luckily Trump is nowhere near as cunning, industrious, and foresightful as were any of the dictators of the twentieth century, and there's a lot of opposition to him throughout society. He's a really shitty politician, clumsy and clueless in wielding authority.

But I agree that with him in power, nothing good will get done by government.
I think the only thing that protects us from Trump seizing power is that the American president, relatively, is a weak political leader. Those founding fathers did that right.
[/QUOTE]
But that depends on how willing he is to abide by constitutional and political norms. He has shown a lot of contempt for them, and he might use some big calamity as an excuse to demand "extraordinary" powers. That's what the Nazis did with the Reichstag fire. They howled that Communists were on the march and that they needed extraordinary powers to deal with this menace. That's also how the PATRIOT act got passed.

So I agree with Jobar. By the standards of Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini and Francisco Franco and other such dictators, he is a rank amateur. He is so narcissistic that a reflecting pool could be dangerous for him, and that apparently makes him easy to manipulate with flattery. He also has no experience in leading a political party or anything similar -- only his family business.

User avatar
DrZoidberg
Posts: 204
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2017 7:50 am

Post by DrZoidberg » Sat Nov 25, 2017 6:14 pm

[quote=""lpetrich""]
DrZoidberg;680795 wrote:
Jobar;680785 wrote:Luckily Trump is nowhere near as cunning, industrious, and foresightful as were any of the dictators of the twentieth century, and there's a lot of opposition to him throughout society. He's a really shitty politician, clumsy and clueless in wielding authority.

But I agree that with him in power, nothing good will get done by government.
I think the only thing that protects us from Trump seizing power is that the American president, relatively, is a weak political leader. Those founding fathers did that right.
But that depends on how willing he is to abide by constitutional and political norms. He has shown a lot of contempt for them, and he might use some big calamity as an excuse to demand "extraordinary" powers. That's what the Nazis did with the Reichstag fire. They howled that Communists were on the march and that they needed extraordinary powers to deal with this menace. That's also how the PATRIOT act got passed.
[/QUOTE]

Hmm.... the communists were on the march. They'd already tried and failed to grab power in Germany. The basic problem of that time was that there was a massive rift in society between the left, the other left and the.... even more left right wing The point is that it was a political instability caused by the various sides irreconcilable differences. That led to a political situation that was rapidly spiralling out of control. The Nazis weren't helping though.

disclaimer: Yes, I'm aware that it's possible to describe the situation in other ways. Any description is a simplification.

There's many things in USA that is analogous. The Trump supporters are largely morons. But the American left are also mostly loudmouthed fucking idiots. The voices of reason on both sides are being drowned out. I can't see any indication that's a trend that is changing?

But I do think it's unlikely that, even in a worst case scenario, USA will become a dictatorship. I think it's more likely we'll see another civil war before that.

[quote=""lpetrich""]
So I agree with Jobar. By the standards of Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini and Francisco Franco and other such dictators, he is a rank amateur. He is so narcissistic that a reflecting pool could be dangerous for him, and that apparently makes him easy to manipulate with flattery. He also has no experience in leading a political party or anything similar -- only his family business.[/quote]

Idi Amin managed to become a dictator. He was a fucking moron. Bedel Bokassa is another one. You don't need to be smart to grab power. All you need to do is figure out the steps you need to take to consolidate that power. Or have somebody around you who can helpfully inform you of this in exchange for a cushy position.
"Sorry, you must have been boring"
/Dr Zoidberg

User avatar
lpetrich
Posts: 14453
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:53 pm
Location: Lebanon, OR, USA

Post by lpetrich » Sat Nov 25, 2017 10:36 pm

Idi Amin Dada and Jean-Bédel Bokassa were both military leaders before they took over. Francisco Franco, Benito Mussolini, and Adolf Hitler all were leaders of military and/or political factions before they took over. So all five dictators had much better leadership experience than Donald Trump.

Though he is more usually called plain Idi Amin, I like to call him Idi Amin Dada.

User avatar
DrZoidberg
Posts: 204
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2017 7:50 am

Post by DrZoidberg » Sun Nov 26, 2017 1:53 am

[quote=""lpetrich""]
DrZoidberg;680795 wrote:
Jobar;680785 wrote:Luckily Trump is nowhere near as cunning, industrious, and foresightful as were any of the dictators of the twentieth century, and there's a lot of opposition to him throughout society. He's a really shitty politician, clumsy and clueless in wielding authority.

But I agree that with him in power, nothing good will get done by government.
I think the only thing that protects us from Trump seizing power is that the American president, relatively, is a weak political leader. Those founding fathers did that right.
But that depends on how willing he is to abide by constitutional and political norms. He has shown a lot of contempt for them, and he might use some big calamity as an excuse to demand "extraordinary" powers. That's what the Nazis did with the Reichstag fire. They howled that Communists were on the march and that they needed extraordinary powers to deal with this menace. That's also how the PATRIOT act got passed.
[/QUOTE]

Hmm.... the communists were on the march. They'd already tried and failed to grab power in Germany. The basic problem of that time was that there was a massive rift in society between the left, the other left and the.... even more left right wing The point is that it was a political instability caused by the various sides irreconcilable differences. That led to a political situation that was rapidly spiralling out of control. The Nazis weren't helping though.

disclaimer: Yes, I'm aware that it's possible to describe the situation in other ways. Any description is a simplification.

There's many things in USA that is analogous. The Trump supporters are largely morons. But the American left are also mostly loudmouthed fucking idiots. The voices of reason on both sides are being drowned out. I can't see any indication that's a trend that is changing?

But I do think it's unlikely that, even in a worst case scenario, USA will become a dictatorship. I think it's more likely we'll see another civil war before that.

[quote=""lpetrich""]
So I agree with Jobar. By the standards of Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini and Francisco Franco and other such dictators, he is a rank amateur. He is so narcissistic that a reflecting pool could be dangerous for him, and that apparently makes him easy to manipulate with flattery. He also has no experience in leading a political party or anything similar -- only his family business.[/quote]

Idi Amin managed to become a dictator. He was a fucking moron. Bedel Bokassa is another one. You don't need to be smart to grab power. All you need to do is figure out the steps you need to take to consolidate that power. Or have somebody around you who can helpfully inform you of this in exchange for a cushy position.
"Sorry, you must have been boring"
/Dr Zoidberg

Post Reply