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
When my great grandmother was a child, the only things that flew threw the air were birds. Before she died, she saw a man land on the moon. And the pace of change has only accelerated since that time. I don't know what the future will hold. As I've said before, I could envision a future in which a small number of people with wealth that vastly exceeds the current Elons of t
when my mum who is still alive was a kid, an expression for something trying to do the ridiculously impossible was "you might as well put a man on the moon".
what kids today will live to see (assuming we make it) is going to be truly extraordinary.
(sorry for the diversion from how unsurprisingly dumb you are)
I thought I did explain and that the explanation was what caused you to think I was unsurprisingly dumb.
I know that you take people's unwillingness to express more certainty about the future as a sign of cowardice. .
I take your unwillingness to express your preference for what you want in governance as a sign of cowardice.
I take your lack of curiosity in phenomena such as the AMOC as cowardice.
Someone can put it on a platter for you and you'll always find a way to a nebulous and riskless position.
when my mum who is still alive was a kid, an expression for something trying to do the ridiculously impossible was "you might as well put a man on the moon".
what kids today will live to see (assuming we make it) is going to be truly extraordinary.
Agreed. And hard to predict.
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
~ Edmund Burke
It's just a quote Rococo .... but I think you represent the "do nothing" part of the population that Burke was referring to.
Yep very hard to predict the pace, the limits and some specifics. With a lot of what we know is possible, it is just a matter of how fast.
Not all predictions are equal
You can take chezlaw's first law to the bank - there will be sex robots
More speculative but still a fair hypothetical bet is that there are people alive today who will know of people who will never visit earth. Assuming we make it. (and you parse it carefully)
much more speculative is the idea of million people colony on mars within 30 years or so. I would not bet on that.
and with respect to climate change we will give ourselves the best chance by slowing it down as much as possible to give us time to develope tech as fast as possible so we can reverse it and mitigate it.
the two things are inextricably intertwined. it's tech more than anything else that enables the regulation and behavioral changes - getting people to switch to green alternatives is massively easier than getting then to abstain.
I thought I did explain and that the explanation was what caused you to think I was unsurprisingly dumb.
Yes you explained it after 3 posts in which you didn’t followed by a what so hard to understand? Absolutely nothing other than the fact that you simply didn’t right off the bat.
The past predicts the future. The future is not so difficult to predict if we study the past.
Has technology changed ? Absolutely.
Have people changed .... not much.
Boom ==> bust ==> boom ==> bust
Human population has grown 1000x since the last time the ocean circulation collapsed 13,000 years ago. That's a boom.
and with respect to climate change we will give ourselves the best chance by slowing it down as much as possible .
And what imaginary policy do you recommend to slow it down as much as possible?
My recommendation is a simple ban on all unnecessary emissions. Anything not related to food, electricity, sanitation, health care, etc ..... gets the ax.
You're still doing it nut nut
You are making any case for your solution, by going on about bad the problem is - that is not the dispute. We need to address what to do about it, not insist our solution is correct because the problem is all too real.
What? He's been very specific at times on how he would attempt to accomplish is environmental goals.
Yes you explained it after 3 posts in which you didn’t followed by a what so hard to understand? Absolutely nothing other than the fact that you simply didn’t right off the bat.
eda,
I'm well tired of this debate. If you want to continue about what an idiot I am, go for it, but I'm done.
Well, the club organises eight competitive events a year for Aston Martin owners, not just races but hill climbs and time trials, plus there's the purely social events and... wait, you're still on about the Gulf Stream, aren't you? But we all know about that. And there's not a great deal we can do about it.
What? He's been very specific at times on how he would attempt to accomplish is environmental goals.
yes but when he gets push back on it's feasibility (to put it politely) he reverts to arguing how bad the problem is (which is not the dispute)
The illusion of human tech supremacy ....
With all of the energy generation around the world from fossil fuels, nuclear, renewables etc ....
We have elevated ourselves to a point where we've reached 1% of the energy being transferred through the AMOC. And that's not even the most powerful ocean current on Earth .. although it does transport the most heat.
And what imaginary policy do you recommend to slow it down as much as possible?
My recommendation is a simple ban on all unnecessary emissions. Anything not related to food, electricity, sanitation, health care, etc ..... gets the ax.
Are we going to keep the old and the week? Am I going to be okay. You know I was just kidding with some of those remarks.
And what imaginary policy do you recommend to slow it down as much as possible?
My recommendation is a simple ban on all unnecessary emissions. Anything not related to food, electricity, sanitation, health care, etc ..... gets the ax.
We need cleaner energy etc fast
Tech investment encouraged and supported by regulation to make switching more attractive are desperately needed.
yes but when he gets push back on it's feasibility (to put it politely) he reverts to arguing how bad the problem is (which is not the dispute)
In my opinion, my proposals are the most feasible.
I understand the arguments to the contrary. The probability that a public which is obsessed with present day survival is going to elect someone with my policy agenda is close to zero.
So, the political feasibility is easily discounted. Let's call it 0.001%.
But there is no other apparent alternative which allows human civilization to endure. So, I assign all other options a 0.000% chance of success. Zero feasibility.
0.001% > 0.000%, so therefore I believe that is more feasible.
My approach depends on some kind of viral mechanism which causes it to take off and be embraced by the public. Somewhere in our future lurks a social tipping point where a vision into the unfolding horror goes viral and causes people to adapt out of fear.
We need cleaner energy etc fast
Tech investment encouraged and supported by regulation to make switching more attractive are desperately needed.
We are doing a great job of ramping up clean energy.
But we aren't replacing fossil energy. We are just adding to it.
What would you do about that ?
eda,
I'm well tired of this debate. If you want to continue about what an idiot I am, go for it, but I'm done.
I wouldn’t call it a debate if you’re just going to go on and on about how I’m calling you an idiot no matter what I actually say and how actually you don’t care and nothing anybody says on the internet about your cognitive abilities impacts you one way or the other.
yes but when he gets push back on it's feasibility (to put it politely) he reverts to arguing how bad the problem is (which is not the dispute)
I am definitely aware of all that. But if you think his solutions are driven towards lowering emissions but just happen to coincidently be unfeasible that need a little tweaking and some group considerations to fix, then we are going to disagree.
I'm not altogether different than most people.
I like to consider what can go wrong. So like most people, I buy homeowner's insurance and I lock my door.
The thing which I feel a little unique is that I'm curious about what can go wrong societally. Locking doors and insurance didn't work out so well for the members of my Jewish tribe in Poland a century ago as something like 98% of them were murdered as a result of societal upheaval.
So I look at things that other people don't. It's a simple survival mechanism.
What I offer has value in the way that blueprints of Auschwitz might have had value to those Jewish Poles in 1935. But I grasp that what I suggest is beyond the scope of belief in the same way that the Holocaust would not have been believed in advance.
We are doing a great job of ramping up clean energy.
But we aren't replacing fossil energy. We are just adding to it.
What would you do about that ?
There is a tipping point. I argue for pushing as hard as possible on the necessary tech (which includes using regulation). It's now pretty close anyway but we should have reached this point years ago.
That's a well meaning but naive illusion.
Market demand for energy is insatiable, regardless of source.
The idea that market forces are going to replace fossil fuel demand in any timeframe necessary to avoid civilization collapse is a fantasy.
In 2018, the IPCC issued the SR15 and warned policymakers that we need a 45% reduction in carbon emissions by 2030 in order to have a chance to avoid 1.5C of post-industrial warming.
Since then, emissions have increased. We've hit 1.5C already. And natural feedback mechanisms which amplify the warming via release of emissions from natural sinks are taking over.
