Nut Nut's Attempt At A Book About Politics & Society
Dear Forum Members,
Over in the poker threads, they have members who blog about their poker experience. I've been wanting
https://www.moodys.com/web/en/us/insight...
Just bookmarking this article which details how Moody's sees the consequences of a major hurricane impacting S. Florida's economy.
This is a "when, not if" scenario.
The Atlantic Basin has produced a >= 150MPH storm for 11 consecutive years now, something completely unprecedented in the satellite record.
The worst scenario for Florida is a Cat 5 running straight into Tampa Bay.
It seems that you are either saying
a) you're insane to believe that humans are going to make the draconian adaptations necessary to survive
or
b) you're insane to believe that humans need to make draconian adaptations in order to survive
pick a path and let's go from there ....
No, I agree that A could happen and B might be necessary. I just disagree that your solutions would either accomplish A or motivate humans to take on B.
No, I agree that A could happen and B might be necessary. I just disagree that your solutions would either accomplish A or motivate humans to take on B.
That is some seriously bizarre logic.
You believe
a) that humans could make draconian adaptations necessary to survive
and you disagree that
b) the draconian adaptations that I am recommend are the correct draconian adaptations
Which begs the question .....
If draconians adaptations are necessary and the ones I am proposing don't do the trick .... which draconian adaptations do you envision as being appropriate ??
That is some seriously bizarre logic. You believe a) that humans could make draconian adaptations necessary to surviveand you disagree thatb) the draconian adaptations that I am recommend are the correct draconian adaptationsWhich begs the question .....If draconians adaptations are necessary and the ones I am proposing don't do the trick .... which draconian adaptations do you
The "draconian" adaptations necessary to THRIVE WELL (not "survive") in the first world would include:
1) install AC everywhere
2) Farm more in the hills and mountains
3) vacationing less on the seaside and more in the mountains, less in hot places and more in cold places
4) insultate their buildings better
and so on.
All stuff that people will do ON THEIR OWN VOLITION when it becomes clear to them THEY PERSONALLY GAIN DOING THAT, which is VERY DIFFERENT from violently imposed radical changes from above, to help people in bangladesh.
That you don't understand this very basic principle of humanity is weird.
People routinely adapt to their surrounding circumstances. While people, especially in the individualistic west, very often abhor state control of their daily lives.
You don't need to ban vacationing when it gets 46 celsius in a place in the summer. People just stop going
The "draconian" adaptations necessary to THRIVE WELL (not "survive") in the first world would include:1) install AC everywhere2) Farm more in the hills and mountains3) vacationing less on the seaside and more in the mountains, less in hot places and more in cold places4) insultate their buildings betterand so on. All stuff that people will do ON THEIR OWN VOLITION when it becom
Did soldiers personally gain from landing on the beaches at Normandy to defeat the Nazi's ? Did soldiers who fought in the Civil War gain personally gain from going into massive battles withs rifles and bayonets ?
Did soldiers personally gain from landing on the beaches at Normandy to defeat the Nazi's ? Did soldiers who fought in the Civil War gain personally gain from going into massive battles withs rifles and bayonets ?
they were in both cases convinced they were fighting to save the lives of their family members and everyone they loved at home, so yes, they did think they personally gained from it.
When they didn't (see Vietnam) the backlash was huge and generational and the fracture in society caused by that was never healed.
And what you are proposing is far worse than that, far longer in time, and it would apply to every one not just young uneducated adult men which are far more gullible than the rest of the population.
And again what you are proposing will NOT fix climate change, because of China et al laughing at you while you suicide your economy
they were in both cases convinced they were fighting to save the lives of their family members and everyone they loved at home, so yes, they did think they personally gained from it.When they didn't (see Vietnam) the backlash was huge and generational and the fracture in society caused by that was never healed.And what you are proposing is far worse than that, far longer in tim
The Chinese would be our brothers and sisters as part of one global tribe under my economy. There would be no more nations.
Imagine a world where we didn't have to invest in militaries to protect each other from hostile foreign nations because there were none.
Now the bottom 10-25% of the current human population has an Iq under 85, and lacks very very basic access to water, electricity, stable calorie sources. They can't read. They live under costant violence and threat of violence from their communities, in disgusting filth, with close to no healthcare.
This is a very misleading way to use statistics to talk about a percentage of the population.
What percentage of the world's illiterate population do you imagine is illiterate because they are not smart enough to learn how to read and write?
This is a very misleading way to use statistics to talk about a percentage of the population.
What percentage of the world's illiterate population do you imagine is illiterate because they are not smart enough to learn how to read and write?
It doesn't matter, because being illiterate they have no notion of what's happening wrt climate change and everything else, and the question was how to keep it "concealed" from them that our intention is to wipe them out (in case it becomes necessary). The answer is they won't have a clue because they are illiterate
The Chinese people are no different than we are. They just grew up in a different place with different customs.
We need to stop thinking of different people in faraway places as enemies.
We can all be friends and get along.
The irony of Lucifer calling people illiterate ....
What science background do you have Lucifer ?
It doesn't matter, because being illiterate they have no notion of what's happening wrt climate change
As I'm sure you know, what you wrote above (whether right or wrong) has nothing to do with my point.
They live under costant violence and threat of violence from their communities, in disgusting filth, with close to no healthcare.
To state the obvious, "you live under constant threat of violence" is a weird reason to devalue someone's life.
The irony of Lucifer calling people illiterate ....
What science background do you have Lucifer ?
So NOW background matters?
In the end, when given a choice between life and death .... almost everyone chooses life.
I don't think the Chinese people really give a damn about whether they keep their national boundaries as long as they have food to eat and a roof over their heads, friends and family and someone to share their bed and clean air and water.
Pretty much what everyone wants.
I confess .... sometimes it's lonely for those of us who want to talk about math and science and ideas about how to make the world a better place.
So much selfishness, fear, greed and bitterness.
Why do we have to have enemies ? People who we measure ourselves against and look down upon in order to feel more valuable ourselves.
We're such primitive creatures. Always competing in a perpetual drama of survival of the fittest.
Where some idiots think air conditioning is better than a world in which that air conditioning isn't necessary.
People are so miserable and selfish that they don't really don't give a damn about the experience of people who will inherit the bag of **** we're leaving them.
I don't know what it feels like inside to not care.
To state the obvious, "you live under constant threat of violence" is a weird reason to devalue someone's life.
again it's not about "devaluing", it's about assessing if they can react to our eventual decisions in time to become a problem for us. They can't.
So if push comes to shove and we "need" collectively to sacrifice people in order for the rest to survive, we can with no repercussions for the rest of us nor any risk they realize that before it's too late
As I'm sure you know, what you wrote above (whether right or wrong) has nothing to do with my point.
I don't know what your point is nor i care in this specific instance. The conversation is about "climate change will be so terrible the planet won't be able to sustain as many people as we currently have". So we have to let some die.
I mentioned we can let die poor people in poor countries and the rest of us survive fine.
Nut nut objected basically that they won't accept that and they will react to that choice (presumably by trying to kill us instead).
I just clarified why they aren't and can't be a threat.
So nut nut "worst case scenario" moved from "exctinction" to " the bottom 20% of humanity dies", and even if some people care a lot about the bottom 20% of humanity, it's still very different from extinction (and actually a ton of people don't really give a **** about poors in other countries)
People are so damn addicted to their polluting behavior that someone comes along and says we need to put caps on pollution that they start conjuring up comparisons to authoritarians like Joseph Stalin.
Selfish bitter drama queens.
It's pretty incredible how deeply tribalism seems to be wired into our DNA.
It's part of our primitive nature to always be prepared to go to war. It's deep in our psyches. In order to keep the inner edge sharp, we require imagined enemies from other tribes.
Are we humans even capable of letting go of tribalism ? Can you imagine a world without it ?
In the end, when given a choice between life and death .... almost everyone chooses life.
I don't think the Chinese people really give a damn about whether they keep their national boundaries as long as they have food to eat and a roof over their heads, friends and family and someone to share their bed and clean air and water.
Pretty much what everyone wants.
sure, chinese people want nothing more than for their fate to be determined by the opinions of indians, Russians, mexicans Indonesians and so on.
they are famously open minded to the point that they will calmly accept foreigners controlling every aspect of their society "to choose life".
they will certainly relinquish all national powers to a global world government any time soon, there is nothing wrong about your opinion on the topic
This assessment of human nature (which I mostly agree with) doesn't bode well for the government piece of your puzzle.
Convincing people like me that you are correct (at least directionally) about the science is the easy part. The hard part is convincing people like me that your proposed solution would amount in the long run to something better than layering a shitty dictatorship on top of a massive climate problem.
