President Donald Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at
You're willing to rationalize and minimize the environmental impacts of the things you enjoy. Basically, you're a hypocrite.
If 1,000 people share a community swimming pool, that's 1/3,000th of a car per person in emissions. Maybe 1 / 1000 for a large pool. That's fine.
And it supplies a job for someone in the community. Taking care of the pool, lifeguard and swimming lessons.
Agreed. I don't see a major issue with community pools.
You're willing to rationalize and minimize the environmental impacts of the things you enjoy. Basically, you're a hypocrite.
From my perspective, I'm proposing the minimums necessary to preserve human civilization.
It's not my goal to take away all pleasures from the public.
I enjoy dogs. But I don't own one. I don't want to take people's dogs away from them. It's not about me and what I enjoy. I would be fine without a community pool. But I want people to have community resources for recreation, socialization and exercise. There's no reason to end the custom of young women tanning in bikini's :-)
Asking humans to give up dogs altogether is too much. They add so much to people's sense of emotional well-being.
If we are talking about the end of human civilization, then "**** your emotional well-being" would seem like an appropriate response to the guy who loves his St. Bernard.
Also ... please stop using the word "utopia". I am not representing my proposals as resulting in a utopia. They should be thought of as an alternative to civilization collapse.
Fair enough.
People swimming in public pools is not contributing to AMOC collapse.
100,000 commercial flights a day is a completely different story.
If we are talking about the end of human civilization, then "**** your emotional well-being" would seem like an appropriate response to the guy who loves his St. Bernard.
Fair enough.
A middle ground might be to get the guy to trade in the St. Bernard for a beagle.
That St. Bernard involves ~ 3 tons of CO2 emissions per year. A beagle would be a 75% reduction. A big step in the right direction.
But let's consider what a relationship with a dog means to a person vs a trip to Europe which lasts 2 weeks. I think it's a bigger ask to have people walk away from these relationships cold turkey.
So .... dogs need to be downsized over time in terms of size and population. Humans would do well to downsize their own population in an orderly fashion as well. How to accomplish that ... I'm not sure.
I would be perfectly fine with people choosing everything they want to choose EXCEPT the freedom to pollute in ways that jeopardize the continuity of human civilization. It's not very different in theory from the current ban on committing murder. In practice, that's massive because civilization threatening pollution is routine in our current way of life. I don't believe there i
For some unknown reason, you are more focused on my preferences than on practical reality. For better or worse, I don't tend to spend a lot of mental energy thinking about whether I would prefer some impossible world that has little chance of being brought into existence. I guess that I would prefer most any scenario over a total collapse scenario, but if your views about what must be done to prevent a total collapse are exactly correct, then there is a 99.9999% chance that we are headed for total collapse no matter what sort of world I personally prefer.
A middle ground might be to get the guy to trade in the St. Bernard for a beagle. That St. Bernard involves ~ 3 tons of CO2 emissions per year. A beagle would be a 75% reduction. A big step in the right direction. But let's consider what a relationship with a dog means to a person vs a trip to Europe which lasts 2 weeks. I think it's a bigger ask to have people walk away from t
In your world, we don't really have to worry about prioritizing air travel, dogs, and private swimming pools because all these things are way, way, way less than the bare minimum that we need to eliminate in order to prevent total collapse. The beagle has to go. And I'm sure that you want to put down the dogs before we get into the messy business of deciding how to put down a sizeable percentage of the human population.
I don't have an ideology.
I have a preference for the continuity of human civilization. The science indicates that civilization is at risk and I'm advocating on behalf.
I don't make any claims that my preference is good or virtuous and that my political opponents are evil.
A pro-survival preference is not an "idea". It's innate. All animals have this innate programming in one form or another.
Live like the amish but not owning a dog is just asking too much.
Is this the headliner or only the opening act?
Nut Nut,
I assume that you want to prohibit or greatly restrict the farming of water intensive crops. If so, do you have a plan for weening a large percentage of the world population off of rice, which is a huge water hog, but also a basic source of sustenance in a lot of very poor areas of the world?
In your world, we don't really have to worry about prioritizing air travel, dogs, and private swimming pools because all these things are way, way, way less than the bare minimum that we need to eliminate in order to prevent total collapse. The beagle has to go. And I'm sure that you want to put down the dogs before we get into the messy business of deciding how to put down a
Ideally, we adapt in time to avoid having to make such difficult choices.
But the reality of the present-day world is such that many people like Trump and Netanyahu are already quite comfortable in eliminating certain classes of humans.
If push came to shove, my priorities would be humans > beagles > St. Bernard's > commercial air travel.
There is no humane path to ending human civilization. If we take away hospitals and food distribution, we'll get a deadly survival chaos.
We need an orderly and logical degrowth. Taking away people's dogs is going to cause them to freak out and would be destabilizing. We gave up air travel during the early days of Covid and the world continued without a problem.
Nut Nut,
I assume that you want to prohibit or greatly restrict the farming of water intensive crops. If so, do you have a plan for weening a large percentage of the world population off of rice, which is a huge water hog, but also a basic source of sustenance in a lot of very poor areas of the world?
Absolutely not.
Water use for rice is perfectly appropriate.
Water use for data centers, private lawns and certain crops like almond trees might be on the chopping block.
Food supply is our highest priority. That's not the place to look to cut.
Inefficient food supply ..... pushing 6 pounds of grain through a cow to get 1 pound of meat .... that might have to end.
Food supply is our highest priority. That's not the place to look to cut.
Inefficient food supply ..... pushing 6 pounds of grain through a cow to get 1 pound of meat .... that might have to end.
For a number of reasons, arable acreage is environmentally harder to sustain than pasture, so there's that.
I prefer community pets. Smaller dogs have smaller environmental footprint.
Asking humans to give up dogs altogether is too much. They add so much to people's sense of emotional well-being.
Also ... please stop using the word "utopia". I am not representing my proposals as resulting in a utopia. They should be thought of as an alternative to civilization collapse.
Community pets doesnt seem like it would work very well. Getting all the v8s of the road would be a much higher priority.
You might as well have community women and you can offer your Universal Basic Vaginas to all your workers - especially to the poor bastard who is going to have to clean that pool after 10,000 people went swimming in it.
For some unknown reason, you are more focused on my preferences than on practical reality. For better or worse, I don't tend to spend a lot of mental energy thinking about whether I would prefer some impossible world that has little chance of being brought into existence. I guess that I would prefer most any scenario over a total collapse scenario, but if your views about what
There is a reason why I'm focused on your preferences.
If you had to choose between
a) a total collapse which kills you and everyone you care about or
b) the adaptations I recommend
which would you choose ?
For some unknown reason .... you refuse to state your preference.
There is a reason why I'm focused on your preferences.
If you had to choose between
a) a total collapse which kills you and everyone you care about or
b) the adaptations I recommend
which would you choose ?
For some unknown reason .... you refuse to state your preference.
I already answered your question. I said that I would choose most any scenario over (a) if I had only two options. That obviously would include (b).
I don't tend to spend a lot of mental energy thinking about whether I would prefer some impossible world that has little chance of being brought into existence. I guess that I would prefer most any scenario over a total collapse scenario
You clearly live with a normal mindset of a world which doesn't care about what you want. Your perception is that your preferences are irrelevant.
That's the common disease we are all walking around with. A view of the world in which we are so personally irrelevant that we refuse to even articulate our preference for something better.
The truth is that you're not alone Rococo. There are lots of people with a lot in common. There is power in that commonality if people discover it and begin to realize their potential by working together.
But some people have to have the courage and speak up and affirm for the others that they are not alone. Your stating your preference is not without meaning.
