EPTAt what point, if any, do the consequences of that constraint become worse than the consequences of disregarding it?
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3257
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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 | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24264 Posts
At what point, if any, do the consequences of that constraint become worse than the consequences of disregarding it? | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11952 Posts
I know that you are all about revolution, but i don't think the probability of a revolution occurring in the US is that high currently, considering not a lot of people seem to actually support such a thing. A huge problem with the US is that a large percentage of the population doesn't seem to think that there is a problem. But that is something you cannot really change. I don't really know how to deal with people who completely disregard facts or science, and are proud of that. At this point, i really don't know what you can do within the US. Working within the system doesn't work, revolution won't work, changing the system doesn't work. Maybe the US is just doomed, and will take a large part of the planet with it. Maybe the best thing to do is really to set up a plan on how to survive as much of the disaster as possible. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22525 Posts
On July 03 2021 22:34 GreenHorizons wrote: So what your basically asking is when should the US stop being a Democracy?For me a key aspect to examine is what the consequences are of any plan to avert/mitigate global ecological collapse being constrained by requiring it first to win the approval of the US political system as it exists (FPTP, 2 party, dark money, partisan intransigence, etc.) with consideration for the estimated timeline (based on the best available science) to mitigate the severity of the ecological catastrophe future generations will confront. At what point, if any, do the consequences of that constraint become worse than the consequences of disregarding it? You should ask that question to people who actually live in a dicatorship. I'd love to hear their reaction. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
Erasme
Bahamas15899 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On July 04 2021 00:03 Dangermousecatdog wrote: We kind of know what ignoring the constraint of the US political system is. It's not going to be green energy and peace and love. It'll be MAGA hats storming the Capitol complex aided by state officials. It'll be concentration camps at the border. It'll be science used to identify and control resistance. Anyone who argues/thinks that a collapse of democracy in the US will not lead to a "china on steroids" is entirely detached from reality. | ||
|
Severedevil
United States4839 Posts
On July 03 2021 23:14 Gorsameth wrote: So what your basically asking is when should the US stop being a Democracy? I'd argue the opposite -- the US should start being a democracy. The US has several self-imposed catastrophes. The fixes are usually popular with the populous and unpopular with the rich, so the fixes don't happen. | ||
|
Broetchenholer
Germany1964 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany11952 Posts
On July 04 2021 23:11 JimmiC wrote: Exactly, if you ask "is the environment important to you?" you will get lots of yes's. If you ask "are you willing to not have a car?" you will get lots of no's. Some of that might also be based on the whole setup. I can not have a car in a German city, and live my life without a lot of problems, due to good public transportation and more decentralized infrastructure. The same is not true in a lot of US cities as far as i know, and even more untrue if you are in the US and not in a city. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24264 Posts
On July 04 2021 15:12 Severedevil wrote: I'd argue the opposite -- the US should start being a democracy. The US has several self-imposed catastrophes. The fixes are usually popular with the populous and unpopular with the rich, so the fixes don't happen. That about sums it up. While I'm used to all the typical political platitudes, one part about global ecological collapse people seem to struggle to reconcile is the catastrophic, irreversible, and global nature of treating ecological collapse like some oppressed group that the US political system can put off recognition of their human rights for a few more decades. The US political system has been able to get away with telling Black people in the south that "maybe not today, but one day soon your right to vote will be safe and secure" for a 100+ years but that bs doesn't work for climate. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10939 Posts
Drastic action against climate change is unpopular, everywhere. Be it the US, Germany, Canada, France, Switzerland, China, Namibia... wherever. People and sometimes even the general populous like to tell themselves that they want to take action, only to immediatly grind to a halt as soon as they actually would feel some effects. Be it paying more for stuff or using less of stuff, nah, lets do something diffrent! The «true» hippies that there are, are not enough to do anything truely big, no matter the political system. I kinda hope the greens win in Germany, just to see how they collapse (and because the alternatives aren’t better anyway). | ||
|
Erasme
Bahamas15899 Posts
On July 05 2021 18:47 Velr wrote: For the life of me i can’t figure out how you are able to connect these two issues. Drastic action against climate change is unpopular, everywhere. Be it the US, Germany, Canada, France, Switzerland, China, Namibia... wherever. People and sometimes even the general populous like to tell themselves that they want to take action, only to immediatly grind to a halt as soon as they actually would feel some effects. Be it paying more for stuff or using less of stuff, nah, lets do something diffrent! The «true» hippies that there are, are not enough to do anything truely big, no matter the political system. I kinda hope the greens win in Germany, just to see how they collapse (and because the alternatives aren’t better anyway). Didn't we already have that experiment ? Voting in morons to see how fast they destroy the system is rarely a good idea. Especially when the greens in germany want to ban nuclear energy xd | ||
|
mahrgell
Germany3943 Posts
There won't be nuclear energy in Germany and the Greens have exactly nothing to do with it. And the only kinda recent thing the Greens were talking about is to prevent German companies from participating in nuclear power plant construction elsewhere. | ||
|
Erasme
Bahamas15899 Posts
Laughable at best, for the supposedly "green" party. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11952 Posts
On July 07 2021 18:28 Erasme wrote: While it's true that germany has been against nuclear as a whole since chernobyl, the green are against it since the party's inception, making it one of their key point. Laughable at best, for the supposedly "green" party. You kind of seem to have lost track of your argument here. -"The greens in Germany are laughable because they want to ban nuclear energy" -"Germany is already phasing out nuclear energy, based on a decision by a coalition of parties that didn't involve the greens" -"Yes, but the greens wanted to do that earlier" That isn't exactly the most sensible line of thought. Also, it is not laughable for a green party to be against nuclear energy. There are a lot of big environmental problems with nuclear energy. (First and foremost what to do with the nuclear waste, but also the apparently reoccuring problem of major disasters.) Though i guess one could argue that Chernobyl was actually a positive for the ukrainian nature, because apparently humans are a lot worse for nature compared to radiation. But i don't think that is the argument for why nuclear power is environmentally friendly that you want to make. Just because nuclear energy doesn't produce CO2 doesn't mean that it is environmentally a good thing. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22525 Posts
On July 07 2021 19:36 Simberto wrote: 'green' energy (wind/solar/hydro) alone isn't going to satisfy our energy needs so you still need fossil fuels or nuclear power to supplement it. And yes I think nuclear is a better option then fossil fuels. But modern nuclear power plants are a far cry from Chernobyl and Germany has a lot less natural disasters then Japan.You kind of seem to have lost track of your argument here. -"The greens in Germany are laughable because they want to ban nuclear energy" -"Germany is already phasing out nuclear energy, based on a decision by a coalition of parties that didn't involve the greens" -"Yes, but the greens wanted to do that earlier" That isn't exactly the most sensible line of thought. Also, it is not laughable for a green party to be against nuclear energy. There are a lot of big environmental problems with nuclear energy. (First and foremost what to do with the nuclear waste, but also the apparently reoccuring problem of major disasters.) Though i guess one could argue that Chernobyl was actually a positive for the ukrainian nature, because apparently humans are a lot worse for nature compared to radiation. But i don't think that is the argument for why nuclear power is environmentally friendly that you want to make. Just because nuclear energy doesn't produce CO2 doesn't mean that it is environmentally a good thing. | ||
|
Blitzkrieg0
United States13132 Posts
On July 07 2021 19:36 Simberto wrote: You kind of seem to have lost track of your argument here. -"The greens in Germany are laughable because they want to ban nuclear energy" -"Germany is already phasing out nuclear energy, based on a decision by a coalition of parties that didn't involve the greens" -"Yes, but the greens wanted to do that earlier" That isn't exactly the most sensible line of thought. Also, it is not laughable for a green party to be against nuclear energy. There are a lot of big environmental problems with nuclear energy. (First and foremost what to do with the nuclear waste, but also the apparently reoccuring problem of major disasters.) Though i guess one could argue that Chernobyl was actually a positive for the ukrainian nature, because apparently humans are a lot worse for nature compared to radiation. But i don't think that is the argument for why nuclear power is environmentally friendly that you want to make. Just because nuclear energy doesn't produce CO2 doesn't mean that it is environmentally a good thing. Nobody thinks that nuclear energy is great for the environment. It's merely better than the alternatives. You see the same thing with oil pipelines all the time. Oil pipelines aren't good, but they're magnitudes better than transporting by any other means. Germany shifted their energy back to coal primarily when they got rid of all their nuclear power. Do you think coal is good for the environment? | ||
| ||
