President Donald Trump

Normies, am I right??

What do you mean? I concede that I am a pessimist about the future. Maybe that is a sign of age. Maybe that is a sign of my immense frustration with the state of the politics of the country in which I live. But no matter the cause, I see dignity and value in trying to make things as good as we can.

I don't see a third option, do you ?

The world doesn't care what I as an individual want. That's just math. People with the most individual influence over the world care to varying degrees what large numbers of people want. It depends on the person and the issue.

I want to congratulate Rococo for his participation.

He's set an excellent example of allowing the logic of the argument to prevail and speak a truth which I estimate to be nearly universal.

When confronted with the choice of living or dying, we almost all choose life.

The policies I am proposing are not so outlandish as people make them out to be. They are extremely reasonable because they are congruent with people's deepest motivation .... to survive.

They are going to come into being for that very reason. They aren't going to happen because of me. I don't have the power to make anything happen nor do I pretend to.

It is our innate programming that is going to bring these policies to fruition. The current slate of feudal lords might resist to maintain the status quo as long as possible, but the desire to live is like a tsunami wave that will roll over them.

When you cut away the noise and the notions of virtue and evil, we are all the same. We all want to live and protect our children. And that desire is powerful and fundamental.

Sometimes that will to survive causes us to shrink in fear and silence.

Rococo transcended that .... he made it clear that he prefers that human civilization endures.

As I've said before, I very much believe the challenges are real. I'm confident enough about that to say that every country in the world probably should be doing more than any country is doing right now. But I am not arrogant enough to say that I know the optimal way to solve the environmental challenges of the world. I am quite certain that I could assemble an army of people who are more knowledgeable about the environment than you (or me, of course) and who disagree with you on various points. I also would want to consider the collateral consequences and potential unintended consequences of the policies I proposed. You have shown time and again that those are not issues that you care to discuss.

I have never said anything remotely contrary to the bolded. And I don't think this sort of condescending "congratulations" is an effective method of persuasion.

When you realize the thing you want as an individual is pretty much the same thing everyone else wants .... you'll perhaps wake up to the possibility of participating in something meaningful.

If I think about a version of myself whose boundaries end at my skin, it feels very small and lonely.

If I imagine a world in which everything and everyone are connected, then I am not one isolated organism. I am a piece of something larger. Something powerful and universal.

I am not me. I am part of "we".

And the "we" manifests itself when the pieces start connecting with each other and we plug into that "we" energy.

You are arrogant enough to say that I don't know the optimal way.

If you correctly understand your own limits .... does that put you in a good position to understand that no one is capable of knowing better than you ?

You seem much more interested in labeling my behavior as social inappropriate than ascertaining whether the proposals are indeed necessary.

You represent an attitude of prioritizing modesty over legitimate evaluation of survival threats.

It didn't feel condescending on my end.

I'm actually quite pleased with your participation. In that regard you set a better example than anyone else in this community. You deserve credit for that.

For his part, jalfrezi seems to be willing to affirm the trajectory toward collapse.

But all anyone else has to offer is childish name calling and insults.

If people want to call me arrogant, that's their perspective and I won't argue with it. The shoe fits.

But I hope that people can get beyond their characterizations of me and my behavior and pivot to the substance of what I'm trying to warn people about.

I didn't wish for the curiosity which led me to investigate how we're transforming the Earth and where that's leading. That curiosity doesn't make me a good person.

I share what I share because it is useful to those who share my hope for an enduring human civilization. Regardless of all the insults, nothing will make me ashamed of wanting to make a contribution. This is what my conscience leads me to do. And in my imagination of the world, my conscience is my conversation with God.

One of the things I was reflecting upon recently was the primitive tribal aspect of ourselves.

Imagine the energy in Mexico City for a home World Cup game. How the crowd roars as one when the home team scored to go ahead. It's a primitive and electric sensation when a crowd roars as one. That's the modern manifestation of the tribal energy summoned in going to war.

I try to imagine the energy associated with all human tribes coming together as one. Transcending our rivalries and cooperating for the common good.

Roaring together at victory over an inertia that wants to destroy us all.

That's my fantasy.

Trump's m.o. is polarization. Divide and conquer. Dividing us into two warring camps opposed to each other.

I dream of a leader who brings everyone together into a cohesive team.

The trouble is that there's this massive gap between the substance of what you are warning about and the solution you propose.

There's has only ever been one option - a combination of behavior, regulation, science and technology, The political question is how fast we pursue it. It's been far too slow but we can try to speed it up. Indulging in some fantasy about an impossible reorganisation of the world is a problem not part of a solution

the solution to saving the world is obvious: let *clap* liz *clap* warren *clap* cook *clap*

That's 100% characterization / projection and 0% science.

Everything I recommend is a combination of behavior, regulation, science and technology.

The science tells us that we can pass the tipping point of AMOC collapse in the present. That should mean all political options are on the table. There is no feasible technological solution to restarting the AMOC if it collapses. There is no feasible technological solution to prevent its collapse. The only potential solution is behavioral and regulatory. It also must involve broad global cooperation.

You can call it a fantasy if you like. You can call it impossible if you like.

But there aren't any alternatives and your word salad doesn't offer anything tangible.

You do the world a disservice when you imply that there are less draconian pathways which avert disaster.

It's a bit egocentric to equate human civilization with "the world".

The world will be fine without us. I'm not trying to save the world.

Don't we all love the ending of Independence Day when people from all over the world joined together to fight the space aliens who came to exterminate us ?

That's what we need.

What's so terrible about global cooperation that upsets people so much ?

it's less egocentrism and more of you being a nit. but sorry, going forward i'll try to be more precise with my throwaway jokes. please accept my humble apologies, sir

The oligarchs have done a great job of brainwashing us with a non-stop barrage of polarizing content.

People with a message like mine are not allowed airtime.

Maybe you would consider some authentic participation instead of some throwaway jokes ?

Clowns are a dime a dozen here.

No

Although i think your claim of projection might be projection

Feel free to chime in with something substantive.

I did

we could discuss villages owning the children and dogs i suppose.