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
How we are not handling world hunger should provide all the info necessary to predict whether or not some global entity could gain the power, resources, consensus, and unconditional buy-in of all countries in an effort to address the climate crisis.
We are screwed. There is no global governance on earth and even if there was certain regions and peoples would be seen as expendable, just as they are today without global governance.
Seems at least feasible that we can make some progress in those areas, if we are making the induction from “doing something about food insecurity” to “doing something about climate change”
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 dictators
See what you do .... you claim that a government that puts hard limits on pollution is a "shitty dictatorship".
You equate environmentalism with Stalinism.
How did your brain get wired to conflate the two ?
See what you do .... you claim that a government that puts hard limits on pollution is a "shitty dictatorship".
You equate environmentalism with Stalinism.
How did your brain get wired to conflate the two ?
I am not claiming that it will be a shitty dictatorship because it puts limits on pollution. I am claiming that you want to install a dictatorship on the theory that it will do good things, but it would end up doing bad things and not giving a **** about the environment, like most every other dictatorship in history.
Seems at least feasible that we can make some progress in those areas, if we are making the induction from “doing something about food insecurity” to “doing something about climate change”
It all depends on how you look at the data in the charts.
If you look from 1880 to 1960, the problem got worse. From 1960 onward, it got better. China got introduced to the Haber - Bosch method of nitrogen fixation and industrial fertilization and fixed their problems for a time.
If you step back and look at a longer time lens, you will see something cyclical. Like a respiratory cycle of alternating expansion and contraction.
I am not claiming that it will be a shitty dictatorship because it puts limits on pollution. I am claiming that you want to install a dictatorship on the theory that it will do good things, but it would end up doing bad things and not giving a **** about the environment, like most every other dictatorship in history.
Do we not live under a dictatorship today ?
Are you free to kill someone ? Steal ? Rape ?
We live under the dictates of money. People have bosses and work for companies with owners who dictate that they must contribute to profitability or be abandoned.
Wanna live outside ? The government is making it a crime to be homeless.
America today is straight up feudalism. Money lords.
To call the climate a "massive" problem is a gross understatement.
As it pertains to the continuity of human civilization, it is a transcendent problem.
Call it whatever level of problem you want. That isn't the point.
What makes you believe that a communist dictatorship would actually end up addressing the problem in a way that you endorse? I feel like your answers mostly amount to some combination of (i) because that is the sort of dictatorship I am proposing; and (ii) current governments aren't doing what I want them to do either. Neither response is really an answer to my question.
What makes you believe that a communist dictatorship would actually end up addressing the problem in a way that you endorse? n.
Because I think that's the only way we survive as a species and I have faith in survival instinct.
That desire to survive is nature's way of bullying us into doing what we have to.
That said .... we obviously aren't going to be proactive about adaptation.
Nature is going to have to give us the equivalent of water boarding torture and bring us a lot closer to death before we capitulate.
Right now .... we're effectively playing a game of chicken with an opponent who won't ever budge.
Because I think that's the only way we survive as a species and I have faith in survival instinct.
That desire to survive is nature's way of bullying us into doing what we have to.
Well, if our survival instinct is going to cause the entire world to opt into a communist dictatorship, then I guess you have nothing to worry about.
Well, if our survival instinct is going to cause the entire world to opt into a communist dictatorship, then I guess you have nothing to worry about.
If one is OK with a few billion people dying as a means of proving that we need to change in order to survive .... then that person has nothing to worry about.
The destination is clear ... the depth of the suffering necessary for us to get there is not.
I don't think that I have anything more to add to this conversation. You seem unwilling or unable to explain exactly how this utopian communist dictatorship is going to come to pass or why it will work. To state the obvious, "we have a survival instinct" isn't a complete proof.
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
I'd implement what the actual scientists that you recommended had to say about what should be done.
But then you called the guy a political moron once he recommended what is possibly the best, most universally excepted plan at successfully curbing emissions in real life. But since it wasn't under the system you wanted, you didn't actually care but and instead showed a really idiotic youtube video to prove the point. I wouldn't rate those stream of posts of yours very high at motivating folks in getting aligned in accomplishing your environmental goals if there is a hidden asterisk on how these goals need to be accomplished.
But let's make it easier from here. You at one point acknowledged that your ideas aren't popular and that you'd basically hope that your white knight arises and does some things.
Lets assume everything you want to do can be accomplished through the powers of Nut nuit. Explain how your decisions would actually in a real world scenario be able to accomplish your environmental goals if you had full power of planet earth?
I don't think that I have anything more to add to this conversation. You seem unwilling or unable to explain exactly how this utopian communist dictatorship is going to come to pass or why it will work. To state the obvious, "we have a survival instinct" isn't a complete proof.
Which by the way “we have a survival instinct” is also what motivates people to take short term gain over long term survival of the human race. The “survival instinct” tends to be centered around individual things we do throughout the day, like ignoring conflicts halfway around the world or eventualities of our collective action (re: the climate) in favor of personal mental health.
I'd implement what the actual scientists that you recommended had to say about what should be done. But then you called the guy a political moron once he recommended what is possibly the best, most universally excepted plan at successfully curbing emissions in real life. But since it wasn't under the system you wanted, you didn't actually care but and instead showed a really
First thing I would do is establish a modern global Bill of Rights.
In order of priority.
Food, Clothing & Shelter
Clean Water
Clean Air
Health Care
Education
Broadband Internet
At the moment, there is far more than enough food to feed the world's population. We just need a distribution system to ensure that everyone gets fed.
If for example, we were to make something like Amazon a government entity, they could handle food delivery with a fleet of EV's in developed societies with cities.
We could then eliminate the vast majority of superfluous luxuries. We don't need yachts or recreational motorboats or jet skis. We don't need private aircraft. We don't need the majority of even commercial aircraft decidated to recreational aviation. We don't need beef or the vast territory used for their grazing. We need more forests.
We don't need private vehicle ownership. We can have public fleets that function like uber and invest in more robust public transit.
We don't need grass lawns and the fertilizer / gas mowing that comes with them. We need pollinator friendly habitats and vegetable gardens.
We need to wean ourselves off of dangerous pesticides like RoundUp as quickly as possible.
We don't need luxury homes of thousands of square feet per person.
We don't need junk food like soft drinks and potato chips in plastic packaging. We don't need any single use plastic bags at supermarkets. We don't even need supermarkets. Just place your order and have it delivered.
We don't need cryptocurrency or massive energy and water hogging AI data centers.
We don't need money.
We need educators. We need scientific research. We need people who will work in environmental restoration and beekeepers. We need medical professionals. We need hospitals. We need community facilities like gyms and soccer fields. We need durable housing. We would benefit from arts and theater.
We need a version of the planet which is habitable for human beings. If we can't find a way to scrub the surplus greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, we need a plan to migrate people away from regions en route to becoming inhabitable. If the carrying capacity of the planet is going to be reduced, we have a possibility of doing that in a proactive and humane fashion.
The “survival instinct” tends to be centered around individual things we do throughout the day, like ignoring ..... eventualities of our collective action .
I certainly grasp this.
And that's our Achilles Heel as a species ..... we don't have anyone who has the job of being responsible for the eventualities of our collective action.
you called the guy a political moron once he recommended what is possibly the best, most universally excepted plan at successfully curbing emissions in real life.
LOL. You think a carbon tax is universally accepted ?
Tell me how the American people feel about a tax on their gas, home heating and beef ?
If it's so universally accepted, how come it isn't happening and is rarely discussed ?
If a carbon tax were universally accepted .... do you think Exxon would pretend to be in favor of it ?
Plastic is rapidly accumulating in all of our brains.
No human being on Earth has authority for the consequence of such a development. We all pay the price a form of government which caters to a people who are completely consumed with how we feel TODAY and are completely unprepared for the consequences of our ubiquitous short-sightedness.
The plastic is in the air and in the water. It's in the soil. There is no longer any such this as true organic food grown outdoors.
Was there any vote about allowing plastic into our bodies ? And debate ?
We tell ourselves fantasies about human "ingenuity". Pretend that we're some special species which a mythical God prefers over all others.
We're just zombies. Selfish greedy zombies. So locked into ourselves and our egos that we can't stand apart from the world and look at it clearly.
Someone comes along and shines a light on the darkness in you and you try to beat it off. Call him names. Pretend, he's some kind of ghoul.
Just a bunch of scared animals. That's all we are.
You call me an authoritarian ..... meanwhile the modern version of the Gestapo has all of our electronic communications. Even the services we have been told were encrypted .... it's all a lie.
They made so you can't live without the cellphone that they use to track everything about you.
You've already all kneeled to tyranny so don't give me **** about offering to be a different kind of tyrant.
How we are not handling world hunger should provide all the info necessary to predict whether or not some global entity could gain the power, resources, consensus, and unconditional buy-in of all countries in an effort to address the climate crisis. We are screwed. There is no global governance on earth and even if there was certain regions and peoples would be seen as expend
Obesity is already a far worse problem worldwide than hunger, by a very large margin
It all depends on how you look at the data in the charts. If you look from 1880 to 1960, the problem got worse. From 1960 onward, it got better. China got introduced to the Haber - Bosch method of nitrogen fixation and industrial fertilization and fixed their problems for a time. If you step back and look at a longer time lens, you will see something cyclical. Like a respirator
No it didn't because it isn't scaled to actual human population
You know Lucifer ..... it's neither your stupidity nor the darkness in your heart which is most stunning.
It's the brazenness with which you wield them.
I've never come across someone so proud to be so stupid.
