|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Norway28706 Posts
life today is for a vast majority of people vastly improved compared to how life was in the 18th to 20th century. I also didn't know that government was telling you when you can have sex or what hours of day you can go to a public park (although I understand that certain public parks are considered unsafe at night and thus it is recommended to not go there). I'm also quite certain that comprehensive OHS policies in different workplaces have significantly contributed to decreases in workplace related deaths and injuries, although I don't have statistics.
In one way, I do understand much of the opposition to 'new regulatory regime'. Like, can't people just be allowed to figure stuff out for themselves without being told what to do? I mean, I can, The problem is just that.. mostly stuff is that is being regulated these days is stuff that is being regulated because a sufficient amount of people were hurt by the former lack of regulations. There are exceptions, absolutely, but it's kinda telling to me how the basic examples you bring up are a) something I've never heard of and hope isn't a real thing, b) something where I'm also wondering about specifics, and c) a set of regulations that actually make a lot of sense from my experience.
Also, I think your third paragraph shows the problem quite nicely. 'Educate the people,and if people value the environment, they will make choices that benefit the environment'. And if people don't value it, the environment gets fucked. Historically, 'the people', even in countries very conscious about environmental protection, quite simply are not good enough at protecting the environment for that to be sufficient. I really wish they would- because I kinda think that on a long term basis, as I do genuinely think that the environment is gonna get pretty fucked, we're gonna install governments that rob us of some freedoms I have greatly enjoyed having simply because people aren't responsible enough to have them. I'd like for that not to happen - but I also prefer it over the environment becoming beyond fucked.
This again is the same argument many people are using for voting for Trump (or european anti-immigrant parties) now anyway, which points to the same parallel I alluded to a couple pages back. 'the immigration problem' has gotten so out of hand that 'a strong leader who can fix it' is needed, even though 'I don't agree with him on many other issues'. And honestly, I could probably vote for a socially liberal semi-totalitarian environmentalist.  edit: that would depend a lot upon the rest of the field. in the us, yes, in norway, no.
|
See, my view is this.
In Alberta, the oil sands has a target of a maximum of 1 in 10,000 workplace related deaths a year. Whether the number is 1 in 50,000 or 1 in 20,000 I don't think really matters. If one in 20,000 people die every year at work, knowing people, that person was probably hella negligent, on drugs, not following procedures, etc. When this number is one in 100,000, I would think wtf... These employers probably have such massive costs that are passed down to us by making work unnecessarily safe.
Back home in Slovakia, speed limits were much higher, roads were less shielded and worse in quality, but people educated themselves to be careful around it. Instead, here in Calgary we will have 2 kids getting run over by a car a year due to negligent parents, or boom, we are going to inconvenience the entire population by making 30km/hr playground zones that go from one hour before sunrise to one our behind sunset.
There was new OHS passed in Alberta that made it so that roofers have to wear a harness when executing their work on a roof 10ft or higher, or that farmers need to have certain safety standards when almost all of them are just one family working on their field! That's like the government telling me that I have to use some safety knife when cutting lemons when I'm going to sell some lemonade on the street. So when the government starts imposing restrictions like what fridge I can buy, what I have to recycle, or spending massive amounts of money of subsidies for green energy, I dunno. I get the idea that there is a cost of pollution (I have an economics major), and the producer should pay for it, but it just starts to get down this ugly road where we might as well start paying for the air we breathe, for the time we spend walking in nature, etc... That's not the kind of world I want to live in.
The point that most people miss is differentiating between standards of living and quality of life. Yes, a better environment does mean higher productivity, higher life expectancy, higher literacy rates, and there is a correlation to quality of life... But come on, I don't want to live in this gigantic machine where I'm a little cog and I have no real freedom. Sure, I can choose which movie to watch, or which fast food to get, but it's the bigger things in life that I don't think we have enough control over. Yes, I see the advantages of regulating engineering (My first degree), but when I need to fill out so much paper work just to build a damn shed in my backyard? Or having to go through the long process of a fishing license if I just want to go fishing once or twice a year with friends and have a good time. All these things make the world feel so unnatural, even though there are reasons for the examples I gave.
Anyway, for much of my life I've lived by science and math, and we love to quantify things, but man, some things we just really suck at doing, and making people feel like people is one of those things.
To your third paragraph, environmental regulation should be phased in slower. California has a goal of 50% solar by 2020 or something, doesn't it? It's just such a massive shock to the system. Do it slowly so people can change their consuming habits, businesses can adjust, and people can embrace ideas. You wouldn't overnight during the 18th century say that gay marriage is now legal, it's too big of a shock. The ideas proposed here are the end game, and if they're not, I'm afraid of the amount of liberties we will be giving up in the future. Anyway, no amount of efforts will be sufficient with our current population growth, so that's the topic that needs to get much more attention than it currently has.
edit: I was a strong supporter of Trump on anti-immigration, and one of the main things I criticize Canada's PM for is his ambitious Syrian refugee numbers that he thankfully scaled down. Keeping a sense of identity is important in society, and I think a lot of EU is really shooting themselves in the foot. I don't have any issues with sexuality, gender, or race... But one culture crowding out the other is a big deal. I think its absurd that chinese students come to Canada for university, and then they bring their parents who don't speak a word of English. In Alberta, it's nice here. Among Canadians you have a lot of Western Europeans, Israeli, Eastern European, North African, and Asian people who all have similar values. Wanting to have freedoms, coming for a better life where you can earn your worth, etc. These people get along together really well, because they have similar motives, even though they have somewhat different traditions, eat different food, etc. The problem here at least is Natives and many Middle Eastern people, they often don't fit well into the multicultural culture we have, even though it's not exactly multicultural. There's a reason why there is such much controversy about the Syrian Refugees, as well as for Native people receiving massive government payments, kind of a slightly less worse version of the Roma back home near the Hungary border.
Anyway, what I was trying to get at is that Trump had some redeeming qualities for me:
1. immigration
2. stricter borders
3. second amendment
4. anti-feminazi (but still fought for anti-discrimination, but doesn't entertain the silly convos like transgender)
5. simple life focus
6. most pro-choice republican
7. tariffs and more nationalism
8. self-funded
9. supports universal healthcare
Bad qualities:
1. Completely eliminating EPA
2. Destroying common core (kind of split on it)
3. Larger military
4. Shit talking is fine, but often is clueless about what he says
Honestly, whether he knows what he is doing or not, a lot of his ideas are pretty good, though the number of times he lies, says wrong information, is manipulative, changes his mind(some is okay), takes things out of context, and uses these low blows instead of focusing of views and beliefs is getting to me. However for me, Hillary is so bad, that I would consider voting (if I could), for one of those awful Libertarians (minus Gary Johnson, he's okay). And because of that, I think Donald Trump is the best of the bunch, though my viewpoint of him went from like an 8/10 to a 5/10, whereas a Hillary is like a 2.5/10, and Gary is a 4.5/10 (nice guy, but I don't agree with him, same as Bernie), and I'd give Obama a 5.5-6/10 (yes, many of my issues with Hillary are her nonexistent personal integrity).
|
Norway28706 Posts
that all makes sense, good post. Not that I agree with it all, but nothing I need to argue.
Also, here's the thing. To simplify, we know that the climate gets warmer if we pollute more. We don't quite know by how much / how fast, and we don't understand exactly how the world will be influenced by this, but there are several things that indicate that a smaller increase in temperature is better. Then, it's all about accumulated pollution, meaning that a faster reduction is better than a slower reduction. I really, really hope we avoid needing any extreme solutions- I think the situation must be extremely dire for any population to agree to those. And then the likelihood of those extreme solutions that hinder personal freedom happening is reduced the faster we implement all the palatable solutions. The faster we make all the changes we are willing to do, the less likely are we to be forced to make the changes we're unwilling to do.
To be clear, I don't think a ban on personal cars or limiting plane travels / meat consumption is likely to happen (maybe personal cars in certain cities though) in the foreseeable future, but if I'm playing future-prediction game, I think down the line there might be some now-considered-extreme measures passed to combat further climate change. I mean, the thing is, it's not like it stops by default at +1.5-2 degrees, if sufficient global action doesn't actually take place, what stops it from being +3-4 in 200 years? And finally, even if humans somehow actually end up managing totally fine, I also think the whole great extinction thing going on is an absolute tragedy. 
|
Among thousands of blue-collar bikers wearing patches that called Jane Fonda a traitor, Donald Trump was received rapturously.
On the Sunday of the Memorial Day weekend, the Republican presidential nominee attended the Rolling Thunder rally, a huge gathering on the National Mall in Washington DC. Speaking to a crowd that spilled down the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, he was received as a conquering hero.
Trump repeatedly claimed – falsely – that hundreds of thousands were trying to attend the event, at one point claiming there were “600,000 people trying to get in”.
There were no visible lines or back-ups at any point in or around the mall. Furthermore, according to the United States Census Bureau, the total population of the District of Colombia is just 672,228.
Trump gave his standard stump speech, but the crowd had been primed by a one-term congressman from New York, John LeBoutillier, who insisted in his own speech that hundreds of American prisoners of war were still being held in Vietnam.
Repeated congressional investigations have found no evidence that any living prisoners of wars are still held in south-east Asia.
Source
|
On May 30 2016 10:32 Liquid`Drone wrote:that all makes sense, good post. Not that I agree with it all, but nothing I need to argue. Also, here's the thing. To simplify, we know that the climate gets warmer if we pollute more. We don't quite know by how much / how fast, and we don't understand exactly how the world will be influenced by this, but there are several things that indicate that a smaller increase in temperature is better. Then, it's all about accumulated pollution, meaning that a faster reduction is better than a slower reduction. I really, really hope we avoid needing any extreme solutions- I think the situation must be extremely dire for any population to agree to those. And then the likelihood of those extreme solutions that hinder personal freedom happening is reduced the faster we implement all the palatable solutions. The faster we make all the changes we are willing to do, the less likely are we to be forced to make the changes we're unwilling to do. To be clear, I don't think a ban on personal cars or limiting plane travels / meat consumption is likely to happen (maybe personal cars in certain cities though) in the foreseeable future, but if I'm playing future-prediction game, I think down the line there might be some now-considered-extreme measures passed to combat further climate change. I mean, the thing is, it's not like it stops by default at +1.5-2 degrees, if sufficient global action doesn't actually take place, what stops it from being +3-4 in 200 years? And finally, even if humans somehow actually end up managing totally fine, I also think the whole great extinction thing going on is an absolute tragedy.
Thanks for the kind words  .
I don't think the climate change issue is as big as some people like to think. Technology is doing such a good job, that currently wind energy is only a little bit more expensive than natural gas or coal, and costs of solar are going down rapidly as well. Tesla has cars which are getting close to the cost of gasoline and diesel powered vehicles. When the cost of oil was going up, we started to be a lot more careful with housing insulation and whatnot, that I think a lot of these problems will solve themselves with a bit of time. Simply by educating people about climate change will also help significantly in getting people to make environmental decisions, even if its slightly more expensive (of course not when it's not a magnitude higher though)... Just as we see the response of people buying organic food at double or triple the cost of normal food, and that's with no regulation.
It wont take Chinise citizen too much longer to learn that living in cities covered in smog is unhealthy, and they will follow suit, India will do the same 15-30 years down the road as well. Plus, we're moving into this information based society where computers are so much of what we do, and we are seeing so much progress in this field, and as such, I think that people will be consuming less and less material goods with time as well.
I am probably a bit biased since I live in a city that is larger than new york in area (and live in a sparsely populated region in general), yet 1/8th the population, but I think that keeping our population in check and educating people will deal with global warming just fine. On the other hand, pollution needs to be dealt with, like chlorinated and fluorinated hydrocarbons and their associated aromatic compounds, mercury, etc., but those are things that we are dealing with already (and good investments). Anyway, I think the west has been doing its part just fine for the last 40+ years, before this recent push came to be, and we will be doing even better than we have historically due to technology and further education. The next step is to ensure that our populations stay in balance, which the western world is already achieving quite well without any intervention, so a few small non-intrusive policies could go a long way.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/x3A8arE.png)
|
I don't think anyone in China or India has any question about living in smog is not healthy.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/7e4WbS5.jpg)
On May 30 2016 11:04 FiWiFaKi wrote:
Also that graphic is stupid considering developing countries account for 80%+ of the population, so on per capita base they need to double the current total world emission to match developing countries' level
|
On May 30 2016 05:21 opisska wrote:The information about the growth to 11 billion just by people not dying enough is really intruiging, I never thought about that. Anyway, I feel I have done my part in saving the Earth by not having any kids, so I can splurge in other aspects, such as the 70 tons of CO2 I already made by flying alone
"Saving the Earth". Geeze, louise, the brainwashing hurts even all the way over here. The Earth has been here long before us and will be here long after we're gone.There's nothing we can do that nature hasn't all ready done a billion-fold worse to itself. Super-volcanoes, comets, ice-ages that covered the entire world, natural climate catastrophes (permian extinction, etc.), etc. etc. Not to mention that in about 800 million years the Earth will become nearly uninhabitable due to the Sun becoming much more luminous and large (beginning its period of Red-Giantness).
The hyperbole that adherents themselves believe is the reason why so many people look at environmentalism and want nothing to do with it. It has more in common with cultism and religion than with science. If you're worried about the "Earth" don't be - it'll be here no matter what we do...life on the other hand...who knows.
I'm surprised I'm the first person to even notice how radical this post is ascribing self-sterilization to doomsday environmentalism. If that's not culty, I'm not sure what is.
|
WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge is ordering the release of Trump University internal documents in a class-action lawsuit against the now-defunct real estate school owned by presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.
The order by U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel in San Diego, which came Friday in response to a request by The Washington Post, calls for the documents to be released by Thursday. The Post reported the order in a story on its website Saturday.
Trump University has been cited in anti-Trump political ads during the primary campaign as evidence that Trump doesn't fulfill his promises. Trump's lawyers deny any wrongdoing in the case before Curiel as well as another class-action suit in San Diego and a $40 million lawsuit filed in 2013 by the state of New York alleging that more than 5,000 people had been defrauded.
The New York real estate mogul, for his part, has claimed that Curiel is a "hater of Donald Trump" and should be ashamed of how he has handled the case. Trump also has questioned whether Curiel, who is Hispanic, is biased against him because of his call for deporting immigrants in the U.S. illegally.
Source
|
On May 30 2016 11:31 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2016 05:21 opisska wrote:The information about the growth to 11 billion just by people not dying enough is really intruiging, I never thought about that. Anyway, I feel I have done my part in saving the Earth by not having any kids, so I can splurge in other aspects, such as the 70 tons of CO2 I already made by flying alone "Saving the Earth". Geeze, louise, the brainwashing hurts even all the way over here. The Earth has been here long before us and will be here long after we're gone.There's nothing we can do that nature hasn't all ready done a billion-fold worse to itself. Super-volcanoes, comets, ice-ages that covered the entire world, natural climate catastrophes (permian extinction, etc.), etc. etc. Not to mention that in about 800 million years the Earth will become nearly uninhabitable due to the Sun becoming much more luminous and large (beginning its period of Red-Giantness). The hyperbole that adherents themselves believe is the reason why so many people look at environmentalism and want nothing to do with it. It has more in common with cultism and religion than with science. If you're worried about the "Earth" don't be - it'll be here no matter what we do...life on the other hand...who knows. I'm surprised I'm the first person to even notice how radical this post is ascribing self-sterilization to doomsday environmentalism. If that's not culty, I'm not sure what is.
when people say "save the earth" in this context they mean "don't let the environment change to the point where it fucks us up", not "the earth is literally going to explode" you are the only one to notice this because it is self evident
|
On May 30 2016 11:48 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2016 11:31 Wegandi wrote:On May 30 2016 05:21 opisska wrote:The information about the growth to 11 billion just by people not dying enough is really intruiging, I never thought about that. Anyway, I feel I have done my part in saving the Earth by not having any kids, so I can splurge in other aspects, such as the 70 tons of CO2 I already made by flying alone "Saving the Earth". Geeze, louise, the brainwashing hurts even all the way over here. The Earth has been here long before us and will be here long after we're gone.There's nothing we can do that nature hasn't all ready done a billion-fold worse to itself. Super-volcanoes, comets, ice-ages that covered the entire world, natural climate catastrophes (permian extinction, etc.), etc. etc. Not to mention that in about 800 million years the Earth will become nearly uninhabitable due to the Sun becoming much more luminous and large (beginning its period of Red-Giantness). The hyperbole that adherents themselves believe is the reason why so many people look at environmentalism and want nothing to do with it. It has more in common with cultism and religion than with science. If you're worried about the "Earth" don't be - it'll be here no matter what we do...life on the other hand...who knows. I'm surprised I'm the first person to even notice how radical this post is ascribing self-sterilization to doomsday environmentalism. If that's not culty, I'm not sure what is. when people say "save the earth" in this context they mean "don't let the environment change to the point where it fucks us up", not "the earth is literally going to explode" you are the only one to notice this because it is self evident
Right, obviously self-evident. Don't let your rationalizations hit you on the ass too hard on the door to the doomsday cultists. Environmentalism is like the secular version of Revelations. Just go back and read the last few pages. More than enough posts of utter annihilation if we don't institute draconian totalitarianism. Forced sterilization. Check. NK style crackdown. Check. If the solution is 1984 on steroids, perhaps we are better off "annihilated" if such prophecies are true.
|
On May 30 2016 11:31 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2016 05:21 opisska wrote:The information about the growth to 11 billion just by people not dying enough is really intruiging, I never thought about that. Anyway, I feel I have done my part in saving the Earth by not having any kids, so I can splurge in other aspects, such as the 70 tons of CO2 I already made by flying alone "Saving the Earth". Geeze, louise, the brainwashing hurts even all the way over here. The Earth has been here long before us and will be here long after we're gone.There's nothing we can do that nature hasn't all ready done a billion-fold worse to itself. Super-volcanoes, comets, ice-ages that covered the entire world, natural climate catastrophes (permian extinction, etc.), etc. etc. Not to mention that in about 800 million years the Earth will become nearly uninhabitable due to the Sun becoming much more luminous and large (beginning its period of Red-Giantness). The hyperbole that adherents themselves believe is the reason why so many people look at environmentalism and want nothing to do with it. It has more in common with cultism and religion than with science. If you're worried about the "Earth" don't be - it'll be here no matter what we do...life on the other hand...who knows. I'm surprised I'm the first person to even notice how radical this post is ascribing self-sterilization to doomsday environmentalism. If that's not culty, I'm not sure what is.
How can you talk about hyperbole when referencing the next phase of the sun 800 million years into the future as if it were in any way a point of relevance?
No the earth won't come to a stop if we stop inhabiting it, but I think most of us would very much like to continue inhabiting it for the course of our natural lives.
|
On May 30 2016 11:18 ragz_gt wrote:I don't think anyone in China or India has any question about living in smog is not healthy. Also that graphic is stupid considering developing countries account for 80%+ of the population, so on per capita base they need to double the current total world emission to match developing countries' level
That's taken out of context. Once they develop they'll be fine, yes, you rather choose pollution over not eating. We are fortunate enough to not be in that situation. Let China develop like we developed (and they're doing it much quicker), and they will start being on the decline as well.
|
On May 30 2016 11:59 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2016 11:48 Nyxisto wrote:On May 30 2016 11:31 Wegandi wrote:On May 30 2016 05:21 opisska wrote:The information about the growth to 11 billion just by people not dying enough is really intruiging, I never thought about that. Anyway, I feel I have done my part in saving the Earth by not having any kids, so I can splurge in other aspects, such as the 70 tons of CO2 I already made by flying alone "Saving the Earth". Geeze, louise, the brainwashing hurts even all the way over here. The Earth has been here long before us and will be here long after we're gone.There's nothing we can do that nature hasn't all ready done a billion-fold worse to itself. Super-volcanoes, comets, ice-ages that covered the entire world, natural climate catastrophes (permian extinction, etc.), etc. etc. Not to mention that in about 800 million years the Earth will become nearly uninhabitable due to the Sun becoming much more luminous and large (beginning its period of Red-Giantness). The hyperbole that adherents themselves believe is the reason why so many people look at environmentalism and want nothing to do with it. It has more in common with cultism and religion than with science. If you're worried about the "Earth" don't be - it'll be here no matter what we do...life on the other hand...who knows. I'm surprised I'm the first person to even notice how radical this post is ascribing self-sterilization to doomsday environmentalism. If that's not culty, I'm not sure what is. when people say "save the earth" in this context they mean "don't let the environment change to the point where it fucks us up", not "the earth is literally going to explode" you are the only one to notice this because it is self evident Right, obviously self-evident. Don't let your rationalizations hit you on the ass too hard on the door to the doomsday cultists. Environmentalism is like the secular version of Revelations. Just go back and read the last few pages. More than enough posts of utter annihilation if we don't institute draconian totalitarianism. Forced sterilization. Check. NK style crackdown. Check. If the solution is 1984 on steroids, perhaps we are better off "annihilated" if such prophecies are true.
I don't think anybody was actually advocating that stuff, as several people have pointed out overpopulation isn't even a problem. Much more important areas are meat consumption, transport, pollution, emissions, antibiotic resistance and so on, all of which can be handled with policies that are way less authoritarian but necessary. Just letting things take their course isn't a serious alternative
|
On May 30 2016 12:25 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2016 11:18 ragz_gt wrote:I don't think anyone in China or India has any question about living in smog is not healthy. On May 30 2016 11:04 FiWiFaKi wrote: Also that graphic is stupid considering developing countries account for 80%+ of the population, so on per capita base they need to double the current total world emission to match developing countries' level That's taken out of context. Once they develop they'll be fine, yes, you rather choose pollution over not eating. We are fortunate enough to not be in that situation. Let China develop like we developed (and they're doing it much quicker), and they will start being on the decline as well.
So the Chinese can be just like us in polluting 3 times as much as they are now?
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC
|
Illegal immigrants in the US often get better care than the nation's military veterans, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has said.
"We're not going to allow that to happen any longer," he told a bikers' rally in Washington DC.
www.bbc.co.uk
Is it wrong of me to make the assumption that he intends to even the score by treating illegals worse instead of treating vets better?
|
Yes it's wrong to assume that. It's one of the things the people who hate him could probably give him some credit for that he was consistent on. Graduated from military academy. Treated veterans with respect all his life. Flies them personally to Mara-a-Lago with their families. Hates seeing wounded warriors missing limbs when they're with their families there.
|
|
|
On May 30 2016 19:33 pmh wrote:
Nuked
What?
|
|
|
If Clinton was facing serious competition the email thing could cost her but she has already beaten Bernie and her remaining opposition looks a lot worse.
The danger is, as it has been all along, that people will simply not turn out to vote. If they go out to vote and it is between Clinton or Trump she will win the majority.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
