|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
If someone had a gun pointed at you and told you that you were going to get shot once no matter what, but, depending on how long you could run on a treadmill he'd shoot you in different places.
If you don't run, you get shot in the torso
If you run a bit, you get shot in the upper leg,
If you run a lot, you get shot in the lower leg
How far do you run? Where in each area do you get shot? How bad is the gunshot going to be?
That's essentially climate change.
We're going to get hit no matter what, but it's well within the scope of possibility power to mitigate the severity of the impact. How much we can mitigate is still up for debate, but it's better to do as much as possible, than to not try.
|
On December 13 2019 03:51 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2019 03:27 Nebuchad wrote:
At some point you're going to have to realize that it's not overnight anymore, and that these people just don't have the long term solution you seek. If this is in response to me, then I agree. It isn't overnight. It isn't even possible if the scientists are correct. Every single day, there are new studies and recommendations that the shit is too far progressed and that pretty much nothing can be done to stop it in time. No immediate transition to renewable energy will slow what has begun. I will be the first to admit I have no idea how to even begin addressing this issue. Smarter people than all of us have been trying to figure it out and they still don't have consensus. Best we can do is prepare for the storm because it is coming. I think there are plenty of idea's what should have been done 10 years ago but (almost) no politician is willing to go that far because it would suicide to try to sell it to the electorate.
Its easy to think little of the impact of climate change because your not seeing 'The day after tomorrow' outside. Over here a politician said that we should aim to half our livestock and people threw a collective fit. Farmers are staging mass protests because we're trying to limit our excessive Nitrogen output.
When the people don't want to change the politicians they elect to represent them don't want to change either, even if they know we should.
|
Any take on what the future holds regarding capitalism and climate change that does not account for the inherently generational nature of the conflict at hand is incomplete at best imo.
|
|
|
On December 13 2019 04:05 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2019 03:51 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On December 13 2019 03:27 Nebuchad wrote:
At some point you're going to have to realize that it's not overnight anymore, and that these people just don't have the long term solution you seek. If this is in response to me, then I agree. It isn't overnight. It isn't even possible if the scientists are correct. Every single day, there are new studies and recommendations that the shit is too far progressed and that pretty much nothing can be done to stop it in time. No immediate transition to renewable energy will slow what has begun. I will be the first to admit I have no idea how to even begin addressing this issue. Smarter people than all of us have been trying to figure it out and they still don't have consensus. Best we can do is prepare for the storm because it is coming. I think there are plenty of idea's what should have been done 10 years ago but (almost) no politician is willing to go that far because it would suicide to try to sell it to the electorate. Its easy to think little of the impact of climate change because your not seeing 'The day after tomorrow' outside. Over here a politician said that we should aim to half our livestock and people threw a collective fit. Farmers are staging mass protests because we're trying to limit our excessive Nitrogen output. When the people don't want to change the politicians they elect to represent them don't want to change either, even if they know we should.
What I am saying is that something should have been a long time ago but corporate interests and general citizenry carelessness of potential consequences of their lifestyles nipped it in the bud. Now, with everything the scientists are saying, there isn't an immediate solution to the issue and there won't be any measurable affect for a long time after we're all dead. But we can start now and try to get it to a point where we can manage it better and if things go right, reverse it.
That isn't the argument being made by the people screaming capitalism and democratic institutions are the core of the issues we face. There are a lot of factors to be taken into account and those factors need to be worked on with thought, about not only the affects that it will have on global ecosystems, but the people inhabiting those places.
The biggest thing is the constant refrain of "democrats are the same as republicans and the whole system needs to be torn down and transitioned to (insert preferred government) immediately." is only turning off people from wanting to discuss anything. Because it inevitably leads to that.
We were talking about fucking space and someone had to bring up that democrats are the biggest hypocrites and worst offenders of all time." What does that add to the topic at hand?
Anyway, I've said my piece. I'm gonna P6 this thread.
|
On December 13 2019 04:30 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2019 04:05 Gorsameth wrote:On December 13 2019 03:51 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On December 13 2019 03:27 Nebuchad wrote:
At some point you're going to have to realize that it's not overnight anymore, and that these people just don't have the long term solution you seek. If this is in response to me, then I agree. It isn't overnight. It isn't even possible if the scientists are correct. Every single day, there are new studies and recommendations that the shit is too far progressed and that pretty much nothing can be done to stop it in time. No immediate transition to renewable energy will slow what has begun. I will be the first to admit I have no idea how to even begin addressing this issue. Smarter people than all of us have been trying to figure it out and they still don't have consensus. Best we can do is prepare for the storm because it is coming. I think there are plenty of idea's what should have been done 10 years ago but (almost) no politician is willing to go that far because it would suicide to try to sell it to the electorate. Its easy to think little of the impact of climate change because your not seeing 'The day after tomorrow' outside. Over here a politician said that we should aim to half our livestock and people threw a collective fit. Farmers are staging mass protests because we're trying to limit our excessive Nitrogen output. When the people don't want to change the politicians they elect to represent them don't want to change either, even if they know we should. What I am saying is that something should have been a long time ago but corporate interests and general citizenry carelessness of potential consequences of their lifestyles nipped it in the bud. Now, with everything the scientists are saying, there isn't an immediate solution to the issue and there won't be any measurable affect for a long time after we're all dead. But we can start now and try to get it to a point where we can manage it better and if things go right, reverse it. That isn't the argument being made by the people screaming capitalism and democratic institutions are the core of the issues we face. There are a lot of factors to be taken into account and those factors need to be worked on with thought, about not only the affects that it will have on global ecosystems, but the people inhabiting those places. The biggest thing is the constant refrain of "democrats are the same as republicans and the whole system needs to be torn down and transitioned to (insert preferred government) immediately." is only turning off people from wanting to discuss anything. Because it inevitably leads to that. We were talking about fucking space and someone had to bring up that democrats are the biggest hypocrites and worst offenders of all time." What does that add to the topic at hand? Anyway, I've said my piece. I'm gonna P6 this thread. I have repeatedly told GH that his attitude turns allies into enemies. He doesn't listen.
|
|
|
Is there a reasoning that you have used to deduce that the problem isn't the capitalist class?
|
United States42689 Posts
It’s absurd to demand that individuals prove that they’re beyond reproach before being willing to discuss anything with them. It’s like a doctor interrogating you on your salt consumption before treating a gunshot wound. “You say you want to live but your sodium intake implies you have other priorities so really you’re complicit in your shortened lifespan”.
It’s not about hypocrisy and it never has been, it’s about shutting people up.
|
|
|
On December 13 2019 04:52 KwarK wrote:
It’s absurd to demand that individuals prove that they’re beyond reproach before being willing to discuss anything with them. It’s like a doctor interrogating you on your salt consumption before treating a gunshot wound. “You say you want to live but your sodium intake implies you have other priorities so really you’re complicit in your shortened lifespan”.
It’s not about hypocrisy and it never has been, it’s about shutting people up.
No one is trying to shut anyone up. Where did you get that from anything we've said in this thread? At most, we're asking what have they done to mitigate their own personal contributions to climate change. If all they're screaming is for everyone else to change but they haven't then it is hypocritical to expect global change on something this immense when you're benefiting from it.
This reminds me of the irony of Greta Thunberg being named Time mag's Person of the Year.
|
|
|
United States42689 Posts
On December 13 2019 04:57 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2019 04:52 KwarK wrote:
It’s absurd to demand that individuals prove that they’re beyond reproach before being willing to discuss anything with them. It’s like a doctor interrogating you on your salt consumption before treating a gunshot wound. “You say you want to live but your sodium intake implies you have other priorities so really you’re complicit in your shortened lifespan”.
It’s not about hypocrisy and it never has been, it’s about shutting people up. No one is trying to shut anyone up. Where did you get that from anything we've said in this thread? At most, we're asking what have they done to mitigate their own personal contributions to climate change. If all they're screaming is for everyone else to change but they haven't then it is hypocritical to expect global change on something this immense when you're benefiting from it. This reminds me of the irony of Greta Thunberg being named Time mag's Person of the Year.
It’s not individuals who are fucking this up, it’s structural. Carbon isn’t priced into the price of goods, while wages are based on living costs that also don’t include the carbon. Workers are paid as low as they can and told to work it out somehow and so they buy cheap goods, burn petrol, get electricity from coal, and so forth. If the government mandated clean energy then wages would rise with the cost of living increase. Blaming individuals for acting rationally within a system larger than them is ridiculous.
The vast majority of carbon comes from a handful of activities, the gunshot wound. It’s the gunshot that’s the issue, demanding individuals change their salt intake isn’t going to make any difference to the outcome, it exists only as a purity test.
Individuals aren’t responsible for climate change.
|
On December 13 2019 04:57 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2019 04:52 KwarK wrote:
It’s absurd to demand that individuals prove that they’re beyond reproach before being willing to discuss anything with them. It’s like a doctor interrogating you on your salt consumption before treating a gunshot wound. “You day you want to live but your sodium intake implies you have other priorities so really you’re complicit in your shortened lifespan”. I never said I would not discuss anything with them. But would you rather take advice on weight loss from some fat guy on the street or a in shape doctor? And if the fat guy on the street insulted you over and over again for you saying the problem was calories and not the magic belt he was trying to sell you, it might be a reasonable question ask how exactly that magic belt is supposed to work.
Yes, that's because me or you being in shape personally is a problem that is fixed by me or you personally. I am going to need to do sport, I am going to need to eat healthier. Now if you want individuals to be in shape, as opposed to just a specific individual like me or you, it would be much more effective to focus on the forces driving obesity rates, and those forces are capitalistic in nature (fast food, cheap unhealthy food, and so on).
So, in a sense, excellent analogy.
On December 13 2019 05:01 JimmiC wrote:
Can you give me some real life examples of socialist systems in practice that have removed these problems? So far to me the best ones are democracies, with lots of regulations on the capitalism.
No I can't.
|
|
|
|
|
On December 13 2019 05:02 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2019 04:57 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On December 13 2019 04:52 KwarK wrote:
It’s absurd to demand that individuals prove that they’re beyond reproach before being willing to discuss anything with them. It’s like a doctor interrogating you on your salt consumption before treating a gunshot wound. “You say you want to live but your sodium intake implies you have other priorities so really you’re complicit in your shortened lifespan”.
It’s not about hypocrisy and it never has been, it’s about shutting people up. No one is trying to shut anyone up. Where did you get that from anything we've said in this thread? At most, we're asking what have they done to mitigate their own personal contributions to climate change. If all they're screaming is for everyone else to change but they haven't then it is hypocritical to expect global change on something this immense when you're benefiting from it. This reminds me of the irony of Greta Thunberg being named Time mag's Person of the Year. It’s not individuals who are fucking this up, it’s structural. Carbon isn’t priced into the price of goods, while wages are based on living costs that also don’t include the carbon. The vast majority of carbon comes from a handful of activities, the gunshot wound. It’s the gunshot that’s the issue, demanding individuals change their salt intake isn’t going to make any difference to the outcome, it exists only as a purity test. Individuals aren’t responsible for climate change.
The "gunshot wound" is already too large to operate on. Best we can do is try to prolong the life of the "patient". The carbon cannot be sequestered back into the ground. The seas cannot handle it. The polar ice caps are fucking toast according to scientists (but may have a chance if we start to get shit fixed now).
Individuals are the problem because, like it or not, we as humans consume. And we continue to do so. And in order to feed the population, this is what the outcome will always, inevitably be.
It's a Thanos snap problem. You can solve the problem by destroying everything and giving the survivors a chance to make better decisions for the future (a culling). Or you can do your damn best to work with everyone, every single person, and make the changes that saves as many as possible. Not tear down the world around them and force them to return to agrarian society and fiefdom.
You're argument is sound, but it is a bit naive in my opinion.
|
On December 13 2019 05:07 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2019 05:04 Nebuchad wrote:On December 13 2019 04:57 JimmiC wrote:On December 13 2019 04:52 KwarK wrote:
It’s absurd to demand that individuals prove that they’re beyond reproach before being willing to discuss anything with them. It’s like a doctor interrogating you on your salt consumption before treating a gunshot wound. “You day you want to live but your sodium intake implies you have other priorities so really you’re complicit in your shortened lifespan”. I never said I would not discuss anything with them. But would you rather take advice on weight loss from some fat guy on the street or a in shape doctor? And if the fat guy on the street insulted you over and over again for you saying the problem was calories and not the magic belt he was trying to sell you, it might be a reasonable question ask how exactly that magic belt is supposed to work. Yes, that's because me or you being in shape personally is a problem that is fixed by me or you personally. I am going to need to do sport, I am going to need to eat healthier. Now if you want individuals to be in shape, as opposed to just a specific individual like me or you, it would be much more effective to focus on the forces driving obesity rates, and those forces are capitalistic in nature (fast food, cheap unhealthy food, and so on). So, in a sense, excellent analogy. They are greed and selfishness in nature, which does not magically go away when you switch to socialism.
...and therefore it makes perfect sense to keep a system that rewards greed and selfishness?
|
United States42689 Posts
On December 13 2019 05:05 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2019 05:02 KwarK wrote:On December 13 2019 04:57 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On December 13 2019 04:52 KwarK wrote:
It’s absurd to demand that individuals prove that they’re beyond reproach before being willing to discuss anything with them. It’s like a doctor interrogating you on your salt consumption before treating a gunshot wound. “You say you want to live but your sodium intake implies you have other priorities so really you’re complicit in your shortened lifespan”.
It’s not about hypocrisy and it never has been, it’s about shutting people up. No one is trying to shut anyone up. Where did you get that from anything we've said in this thread? At most, we're asking what have they done to mitigate their own personal contributions to climate change. If all they're screaming is for everyone else to change but they haven't then it is hypocritical to expect global change on something this immense when you're benefiting from it. This reminds me of the irony of Greta Thunberg being named Time mag's Person of the Year. It’s not individuals who are fucking this up, it’s structural. Carbon isn’t priced into the price of goods, while wages are based on living costs that also don’t include the carbon. The vast majority of carbon comes from a handful of activities, the gunshot wound. It’s the gunshot that’s the issue, demanding individuals change their salt intake isn’t going to make any difference to the outcome, it exists only as a purity test. Individuals aren’t responsible for climate change. Individual action is absolutely responsible for climate change, what you are saying is just the excuse people use to keep the same quality of life they are used too and place blame else where. It is no different than when a kid tries to escape by punishment by saying all his friends are doing it. Absolutely better regulation is required to encourage better choices, but if more individuals made better choices it wouldn't be needed.
This is argued from axioms only.
Environmental damage isn’t priced into the economy, causing environmentally damaging goods to be underpriced.
Individuals are squeezed economically by a system that views giving them a surplus as waste.
Individuals behave rationally within that economic structure.
It’s not that everyone else is doing it too. It’s why everyone else is doing it too. That’s the bit you need to focus on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
