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
Watching old Obama videos and how he could walk the streets and how he was with people.
Obama was simultaneously the coolest and most phony president of all time.
A superficially perfect politician.
7 million people voted for both Obama and Trump. Obama disappointed a lot of people.
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 civilizat
I don't see any reason to accept your figures but in general for any of us, with such low and close estimates, the bias and other reasons we might be wrong so massively outweighs the result that nothing follows from it.
How do we avoid civilization collapse in the event of an AMOC collapse?
A recent study puts the chance of reaching an AMOC tipping point at 59% between 2037 and 2064.
Where does your 1% come from?
AMOC collapse would lead to “ice age” conditions. So what? Why would anyone think an ice age would cause civilizational collapse? The scientists that are predicting it (and it’s not even close to all climate scientists) don’t make the further claim that it will cause civilizational collapse.
We also know that it’s possible for the AMOC to collapse altogether. Around the end of the last ice age, a mass melting of ice sheets inundated the Northern Atlantic with freshwater. That changed the density of the water in the northern latitudes, which made it more difficult for water to sink and cool down before heading south. The result was massive cooling in the Northern Hemisphere, and warming in the south, in a matter of just decades.5
Such a collapse would be what scientists call a “climate tipping point”—an event that would lead to sudden, wide-reaching impacts that are difficult if not impossible to reverse. Changing currents would cause sea levels to rise swiftly in areas like the U.S. East Coast, storms would grow more severe, the rainy and dry seasons in the Amazon may flip, and the ice age pattern of a cooling north and warming south would play out once again.6
Is that in store for us? A recent study, using a climate model in a novel way, projected that an AMOC collapse could come as early as mid century, assuming global warming continues at its current rate.6 But that finding is not widely accepted, says Ferrari. In his view, today’s pace of climate change doesn’t appear substantial enough to spur a near-term collapse of the AMOC. “The likelihood that the AMOC collapses, let's say, before the end of the century, according to numerical models and our understanding, is pretty small. Most likely the weakening will be modest,” he says.
AMOC collapse would lead to “ice age” conditions. So what? Why would anyone think an ice age would cause civilizational collapse? The scientists that are predicting it (and it’s not even close to all climate scientists) don’t make the further claim that it will cause civilizational collapse.
First of all ,,,, a true global "ice age" would cause civilization collapse. But AMOC collapse will only cause a regional ice age wiping out northern Europe, Scandinavia and the UK.
The consequences for the rest of the world involve rapid heating and agricultural collapse.
What are the consequences of AMOC collapse ?
1) Hemispheric Heat Redistribution
Paris is actually 2 degrees further north than Fargo, ND. So the winters become colder in Paris than Fargo. Further north, it's basically game over as it becomes too cold to survive and grow food.
The heat accumulates further south and those locations get warmer.
2) East / Gulf Coast Sea Levels Rise 2 feet
The AMOC circulation is like a vacuum cleaner pulling the water off the US East Coast. When you turn it off, the water piles up. A great deal of that highly inhabited coast becomes uninhabitable.
It's not just the 2 feet of sea level rise .... we'll have stronger hurricanes pushing storm surge into those regions on top of that higher sea level. Hurricane strength will increase as a result of the increasing north / south temperature gradient.
3) The oceans will burp out about 75 ppm of CO2. That's about 35 years of additional CO2 emissions at current rates.
In combination with the stalled AMOC, the heat at lower latitudes and in the Southern hemisphere will increase dramatically. Several degrees C in a geologic instant.
4) Weather Chaos
The rain will occur in different times, places and volumes than those which have accompanied the advance of human agriculture. There will be widespread agricultural failure and starvation. Earth's carrying capacity for humans will probably drop by over 50%.
5) Spread of disease
Lots of disease spread is currently bounded by the temperature of the organisms which carry it such as mosquitos and ticks. In places like the US which will largely be getting warmer, you'll have more disease spread.
5) Governance Chaos
There's no rulebook for how to manage a massive global population decline, especially when some of the countries which are going under are in possession of WMD's like nukes and deadly technology like nuclear power plants that have the potential to leak waste into the environment.
First of all ,,,, a true global "ice age" would cause civilization collapse. But AMOC collapse will only cause a regional ice age wiping out northern Europe, Scandinavia and the UK. The consequences for the rest of the world involve rapid heating and agricultural collapse. What are the consequences of AMOC collapse ?1) Hemispheric Heat RedistributionParis is actually 2 degrees
Can we get a ban on nut nut spamming chatgpt slop?
In any case, you have to understand that severe weather patterns and crop failures don’t at all automatically translate to civilizational collapse. Civilizational collapse doesn’t mean a collapse of the liberal order. North Korea faced massive food shortages, tech stagnation, military threats, and they managed to continue on as a country throughout all that.
You’re confusing a transition into authoritarian world order with civilizational collapse.
Hey, geezey, you'd vote for Trump a 4th time if it's between Kamala & Trump and you must vote for one or the other, amirite?
Can we get a ban on nut nut spamming chatgpt slop?
You’re confusing a transition into authoritarian world order with civilizational collapse.
I guess it all depends on how you define "civilization".
I don't dispute that what you end up with is an authoritarian world order.
But if 50% or more of the population loses access to any of: food, water, electricity, a coherent financial system, habitable living space, health care and sanitary living conditions .... for me that's going to qualify as the end of human civilization as we know it.
Where is it you imagine people are going to be able to live and grow adequate food? How do you imagine administering a population downsizing in the billions? Governments sending armies of drones to exterminate desperate citizens? How do you manage the spread of nuclear waste ? How do you maintain supply chains ?
When you grow up in the aftermath of the Holocaust, you lose the fairy-tale version of human nature and get introduced to what we truly are at our core.
We are pretty chill and groovy during boom times like post war America when everyone could afford a house and 3 kids.
But when things get tight, we become vicious and brutal.
I would hope to implement the policies necessary to avoid the conditions which lend themselves to that vicious brutality. The kind of brutality that Trump exhibits toward people of color and the racism he inherited from his father.
The Romans have a term called Saeculum .... it refers to a full human lifespan of about 80 years and an interval in which we forget the lessons of the past and repeat the same mistakes. We're on a trajectory for a very dark period in human history. Trump is just an intermediate symptom.
Just sort of your typical online meltdown over stuff that's been understood for 400 years and is routinely taught in high school today.
Why is the Earth's orbital relationship with the Sun not constant ?1) Gravitational forces of other planets. When the Earth is between the Sun and Jupiter, the gravitational force of Jupiter pulls the Earth further away from the Sun. When Venus is between the Sun and the Earth, the gravitational force of Venus pulls the Earth closer to the Sun. The result is an elliptical orbit
That's not how orbital dynamics works. Elliptical orbits are generic solutions to Kepler's laws and of course Newton's laws of gravitation and motion. Even if the Earth and sun were the only objects in the universe, you would expect the distance between the Earth and Sun to not be constant. A circular orbit is theoretically possible, in that a circle is just a special type o
You're speaking gibberish. What you are saying makes no logical sense. In a world with only two spherical objects, one smaller which orbits around the other .... what causes the elliptical shape ? The gravitational force is equal at all points in the orbit, regardless of the fact that the gravitational force is a function of distance. The primary factor which causes elliptical
Knowing in advance that you mf's are going to criticize every damn thing I write ..... I tend to do my homework before I post.
You're an idiot.
You think because you know the name of a historical scientist named Isaac Newton that your logic makes any sense ?
I've provided the information and links to support it.
That's not trumped by the name of a scientist.
And of course the now 2+2 classic of fine here is the exact thing you need to learn followed by refusal to even try with 0 realization that normal people do not act like this.
Here is the basic math for how Newton's laws gives rise to elliptical orbits even with just 1 planet and 1 star......not that anybody was seriously questioning that.
Basic math ? LOL. That's all advanced calculus which no one here grasps. I think the case of Neptune's star Triton confirms the default of a circular orbit. Triton's unusual dynamics result in a planet with virtually zero orbital kinetic energy. That's why the orbit is a virtually perfect circle with eccentricity value of 0.00007. Venus is also very close to a perfectly circula
I'm reminded of the scene in The Dark Knight where Michael Caine in the role of Alfred explains the personality of the Joker to Batman.
"Some people just want to see the world burn".
I'm curious .... I'm not a Christian or an expert on religion .... but it seems like the example of Jesus was compassionate and orbited around behavior like feeding the poor which seems like an attractive example.
Is the UBI I've proposed in synch with that example?
I guess it all depends on how you define "civilization". I don't dispute that what you end up with is an authoritarian world order. But if 50% or more of the population loses access to any of: food, water, electricity, a coherent financial system, habitable living space, health care and sanitary living conditions .... for me that's going to qualify as the end of human civilizat
I take a more anthropological view of civilization, which is to say an organization of a people group around a state with urban centers and either symbolic or written language. So when someone says civilizational collapse, I picture the collapse of such a civilization, meaning it ceases to exist. Which has happened to plenty of civilizations in the past.
You seem to be saying civilizational collapse in the same way most people use the word decline. Meaning, we will still have such organizations of people groups, but they will just be worse off than they are now, or there will be more non-state entities or tribes than there are now.
I expect some civilizations may collapse due to AMOC collapse, but they also kind of just did that anyway prior to climate change/AMOC collapse.
But maybe that’s a good clarification since you don’t actually seem to think that our population will dwindle back to the millions and total state collapse across the planet, just that things will be much worse off. I don’t think anyone that believes climate change will be a huge problem would disagree with that, but it’s the more extreme predictions about climate change that it will lead to global collapse of civilization are what’s at issue.
If we lost 50% of the population we’d still be at 3x the population that we were at in 1900. And as many have pointed out, a lot of the world’s ruling class will be highly insulated from the pain of climate change, which actually is a really bad situation to be in if you care about solving climate change since the world’s most powerful people seem to have much less of a personal incentive to fix it than most of us.
Yeah it's advanced calculus which no one here can understand so let;s just make up how planets orbit stars.
If we lost 50% of the population we’d still be at 3x the population that we were at in 1900. .
If we lost 50% of the world's population, that would be nearly 1000x as many deaths as those that of Jews killed by Nazis during the Holocaust.
I appreciate your effort to minimize such an eventuality as being within some acceptable standard of yours.
I'm not ashamed to find myself in contrast to such an eventuality.
Just sort of your typical online meltdown over stuff that's been understood for 400 years and is routinely taught in high school today.
And of course the now 2+2 classic of fine here is the exact thing you need to learn followed by refusal to even try with 0 realization that normal people do not act like this.
Thank you. That pretty much exactly what I was expecting and made for a good laugh.
Hey, geezey, you'd vote for Trump a 4th time if it's between Kamala & Trump and you must vote for one or the other, amirite?
That girl is probably far less likely to be harmed than anyone else on the whole train.
It's when she gets off the train in her own neighborhood that she's far more likely to be stabbed, shot, raped or murdered. (Unless she lives in a nice Republican and/or gated community of course.)
If/when both Trump and Harris are nominated by their respective parties in 2028, I'll tell you who I plan to vote for.
Since there is a very high likelihood that this forum won't still be around in 2028, DM me your email so we can stay in touch.
And as many have pointed out, a lot of the world’s ruling class will be highly insulated from the pain of climate change, which actually is a really bad situation to be in if you care about solving climate change since the world’s most powerful people seem to have much less of a personal incentive to fix it than most of us.
That's an interesting hypothesis but I'm not certain that the current ruling class will be seen fit to continue in that capacity after they run the world into the ground.
I don't think anyone will be "insulated" from the pain of climate change.
Imagine having to live in hiding behind an army of guards. That might provide insulation from people who want to kill you. But it entails the loss of freedom that an average person today can exercise by going for a walk in a public park. I believe that most people would prefer the freedom of the average person.
At the end of the movie "Don't Look Up", there's the dinner scene at the conclusion of the movie as the fateful meteor is impacting the Earth. Dicaprio's character makes the poignant comment "we really did have it all" just before they all die.
That's a good metaphor for what we might anticipate in the future. Profound regret at what we have squandered.
Human have survived on a very specific version of the planet for the last 300,000 years and a very narrow "Goldilock's" range of heat trapping gases which has been just right for us. We've doubled that in just over a century and installed a version of the planet which is hostile to us. It's going to become increasingly hostile.
Any post-AMOC collapse survivors are going to have to come to terms with how badly we've miscalculated and have to try and adapt from a far more adverse position than we face today. They're going to need a lot of luck to avoid a runaway hothouse situation.
I find this expose by a high class escort at Davos to be illuminating.
https://style.news.am/eng/news/105969/hi...
"The elephant in the room is climate change. Everyone knows it can't be prevented any more," she said, adding that the "super-rich" could be divided into two groups on the issue.
“One group thinks it only affects the poor, the ‘non-white race,’ while the other group is afraid it could get worse, but there’s no point in trying to do anything about it, so they just enjoy life,” she said. “One half is in despair, and the other, stupider half, is celebrating the future mass deaths. Of course, it’s not just in Davos, but it’s concentrated there [during the WEF].”
Salome elaborated that some of the super-rich in the first group have said that those living in the Third World “may die, but we in the North are fine.”
“There’s another group that thinks it might, it will also affect us because of unpredictable chain reactions. But they say they can’t do anything against others, so they live by the mantra ‘after us, the deluge.’ They say they’ll enjoy a few more pleasant years on earth, and they know there’s no future.”
If we lost 50% of the world's population, that would be nearly 1000x as many deaths as those that of Jews killed by Nazis during the Holocaust.
I appreciate your effort to minimize such an eventuality as being within some acceptable standard of yours.
I'm not ashamed to find myself in contrast to such an eventuality.
You really do forget the things you post. Youre policies as well as your preferences far exceed anything Hitler did, so relax.
Your forced reduction took you well past those numbers already, which was always the goal. We literally discussed it a year and a half ago on whether it was worth it and it wasnt me who considered it to be.
You really do forget the things you post. Youre policies as well as your preferences far exceed anything Hitler did, so relax.
Your forced reduction took you well past those numbers already. Which was always the goal. We discussed a year and a half ago on whether it was worth it and it wasnt me who considered it to be.
You're just inventing now bro.
Eliminating the freedom to pollute is not comparable to anything Hitler did. Providing all citizens with UBI is not comparable to extermination.
If we lost 50% of the world's population, that would be nearly 1000x as many deaths as those that of Jews killed by Nazis during the Holocaust.
I appreciate your effort to minimize such an eventuality as being within some acceptable standard of yours.
I'm not ashamed to find myself in contrast to such an eventuality.
Motte.
That's an interesting hypothesis but I'm not certain that the current ruling class will be seen fit to continue in that capacity after they run the world into the ground. I don't think anyone will be "insulated" from the pain of climate change. Imagine having to live in hiding behind an army of guards. That might provide insulation from people who want to kill you. But it entai
Bailey.
It’s not minimizing to point out that everyone is going to die and civilization will collapse is different than we should try to prevent a lot of people from dying or reducing the carrying capacity of the planet.
Also there’s a bit of a disanalogy between genocide and natural disaster from a deontological perspective.
