Japan's hopefully not so "great fall"

Mature Discussion
101

They are champions of their own nature taking the best from the worst of nature itself sometimes, and experts at turning people against each other. After all, that’s where the money is. I’m watching their minions fight any and all attempts at fair taxation for the mega rich now and am simply disgusted with that distorted nuance of a beautiful ideology twisted to serve the cause of extreme greed while millions live on foodstamps. They are going to lose this fight in the court of public opinion.

I mean, if they wanted to really eviscerate capitalism, they are doing the perfect job all by themselves. We know what they want: more for themselves and less for everyone else. Maybe they don’t realise that starving everyone else kills them too, or maybe they don’t care.

It’s the do or die elitism that bothers me the most. People sometimes need help to help themselves, and if people cannot recognize that, then they are not human.

When it becomes profitable to rob everyone of a chance and suffocate the world, the system needs to fail in order to correct itself. The system failed but did we correct it?

102

Geoffrey, I find your posts interesting too! So, I can only apologise for the jumbled mess that follows as my response to your latest. :anjou_embarassed:

Divide and conquer: keep the proles occupied in squabbling amongst themselves (or just watching TV) while you fleece ?em, and therefore unable (logistically and/or mentally) to form any kind of organisation against you.

While I wish that that were true, that we will soon see Steinbeck?s uprising of the dispossessed, I suspect the present state will persist for a while yet as the people sequentially fall for the assuring platitudes of each next politician that they will be different. After all, having to think about an alternative way to do things would threaten their comfort, and everyone has been so well indoctrinated to be atomised consumers reliant upon material privileges rather than cooperative people working for a better world (in terms of observable benefits, not GNP or suchlike).

The problem is that they will be the last to feel the effects of their actions because they are insulated against them by everyone beneath their feet. And the greed is so powerful that they will absolutely not stop until they are forced to, presumably by a crash that will be singularly catastrophic for everyone.

Indeed, the argument that people lacking ?life?s blessings? are that way because they are undeserving is especially toxic and only one step away from the ?social Darwinism? (for want of a better term; no offence to Charles!) that says the poor and uneducated actively deserve to be exploited. Poverty and related factors are demonstrably linked to one?s place of birth, ethnography, place on the social ladder, etc. Absolutely, some people need help, whether to move forward with their lives or to realise how screwed-up our prevailing systems are. To expect everyone to figure everything out by themselves is almost as wrong as to deliberately take advantage of those who cannot.

Nothing substantial seems to have changed. Until people realise their own potential, instead of relying on rulers and politicians to do things for them and allowing business powers to trample all over the planet, I fear it?ll just continue to be a case of ?Meet the new boss, same as the old boss?.

Nothing like some uplifting reflection on the state of affairs to prepare you for the week, eh? :slight_smile:

103

Thanks. :slight_smile:

Me and Chris were discussing this earlier and I asked him if I should assume that the world doesn’t end.

The world will live on even through a nuclear apocalypse. Someone will survive. The question is: will they remember our mistakes to actually learn from them?

I have confidence that the system will correct itself if the process is not interrupted and if everyone is informed of the factual realities of the consequences of their actions. That also requires people to stop living in their own little worlds. We want a world that keeps what helps and throws away what harms in the garbage where it belongs.

To not go off topic, I will say that the time for people to remain content being nothing more than ignorant sheep will soon be over, at this rate. Sooner or later, failure to act will be suicide for all.

Protecting the rich and letting the poor die… will discredit the protectors fairly quickly. Well unless they bring several million jobs back home, but we’ll see. They have to deliver results this time because there is simply no other choice. If you want someone to stand up to the corporate interests pulling strings behind the scenes with the weight of a force of nature, then you need someone who thinks like them.

Because I honestly don’t think people will be content with the inevitable two class system that emerges from the collapse of the middle class.

People should be championing the cause of MORE social mobility, not less.

You are right that the greed of people is in the unenviable position of not caring even in the slightest whom it tramples, but that’s a topic for another day. I just don’t see why giving everyone the same opportunities is so impossible and even such a threat to those who want to emerge as the rulers of us all.

At the moment, to me it feels like this is out of our hands. Until we stop only treating the symptoms of this disease and start curing the actual disease itself, we have to work with it.

There is a way out. Unlimited pollutionless energy would make greed redundant. It’s a shame that Germany decided to abandon nuclear power. Not choosing the lesser of the evils was a step in the wrong direction imo. I am also surprised with the left wing’s anti-nuke stance too, which only helps to continue an endless addiction to other non-renewable polluting sources of energy.

Follow the money and you will see that maintaining the status quo is far too profitable for its own good.

104

[quote=“The Ancient”]TA such an absolutist argument cannot in any effective manner encompass such a complex system. And it reflects a general catch-22 that defines the current right-wing strategy: for if they aren’t perfect liberals then they’re clearly phonies, yet if they’re genuinely liberal / progressive at all then they’re absolutely wrong by default.

[/quote]

The like of Cameron and Blair keep on about the need to cut our Carbon footprint and the High Duty on Flights is part of that of that battle , yet they will not give up their multiple holidays aboard, yet then going on about the need for life style change . Giving up a holiday aboard is hardly a major sacrifice; yet Blair and Cameron not willing even do to do that 1 small change . If the Science is so clear, one is the EU opening up more of its Airspace, Heathrow making a new Runway ? . They all say we need to spot out love affair with Cars, yet then cry when any Car Company inthe UK cut jobs or moves production , whiles on the next hand taxing the Motorist to high heaven in a so called effort to stop people in the UK using their Car so much.

Now if the ones that claim to believe it , start visible changing their life styles, then I may take note and think … this could well be real . Until that day I just think its an excuse to tax the shit of out people.

And its not like the so called experts have called it right . The famous Ice Hockey stick graph from IPCC turned out to be completely and hopelessly wrong , to go along with the lies we were told about the 50 crop yields in Africa by 2020, the lies by Dr Pachauri and vanishing glaciers and in fact in the western Himalayan the glaciers are in fact growing.

105

TA, firstly, I don’t (and don’t have to) trust every motive of ANY of the players.

I’m sure you’re right, to a degree, about tax motives. But that can only be secondary (at best) to the politics in general. As a rule, effective politicians pander to as many special interest groups and trends as they can feasibly get away with. So there’s only two main answers, either vote entirely your own conscience for someone who may well have no chance, or help put the best pressure we still can on these assholes, that they may still serve some sort of purpose. Or do our best to vote for the actual ISSUES.

If you don’t want to believe in this issue that’s also your choice, but condemning the issue itself by the failings of a handful of generic (and generically disingenuous) statesmen, is not even an argument. Or again, the only possible argument that I can see there is a blanket, or BLANK, defense of the status quo.

You seem to me to be setting another no-win condition: That we are to trust in the aggregate wisdom of that status quo; while at the same time the figureheads of that status quo should not be believed?

106

Yeah, the point about not moving away from the status quo until there is a perfect strategy for a reform is precisely what I’ve been attempting to get across. Your post sums up this problem nicely.

The study was conducted by the National Academy of Sciences of the USA.

Source: pnas.org/content/107/27/12107

“Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97?98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.”

You could argue that the people who conducted the survey were bought out by government money. But this tactic seems awfully similar to the tactics used by moon-landing sceptics. There’s lots of talk of government conspiracies, but very little (if any) evidence to go on. Moreover, if the study is inaccurate, the skeptics could conduct their own study to show the opposite. As far as I’m aware, they haven’t.

If you can link me to a source explaining how all of the climate data is owned/controlled by a single company/organisation, I’d be happy to review my position on this. The same with those other points, e.g. fraudulent scientists. But right now, that lack of evidence is precisely what’s causing me to favour those who have provided evidence: the climate scientists.

My apologies if I misrepresented your view; that was not my intent. The general point that seems to be coming across from your posts is that going green would have a significant impact on the economy. The money has to come from somewhere. And with those points I agree. The transition needs to be managed carefully.

Change is possible, for before fossil fuels were used in abundance, people survived by living locally. We need to reevalate what’s important to human well being; consuming the amount of fossil fuels that we use today is wasteful and unnecessary. We are living in an age where these luxuries exist; it will not be so forever. We need to start preparing for peak oil (while at the same time limiting climate change) so that future generations won’t have to deal with our mess. Indeed it will be costly in economic terms, but the environmental impact will be even worse down the line if we don’t start making changes now. As I mentioned earlier, the economy and the environment are coupled together, with the former dependant on the latter.

107

There is no need to argue that is the case, like most of the Universities, the Met Office and so on, they’re all Government funded and hardly independent.

I never for one moment said that or try to make that case. Going Green would cost us billions (not going green would too, so its a mute point) I just wonder if those Billions wouldn’t be better spent on building up our sea and flood defences and better infrastructure and stopping the over population of the Planet I believe the Earth will warm up, the sea will rise no matter what we do. I just see it as a natural cycle and one that’s gone on for millions of years , and to me a far more pressing issue is our ever growing population and how we feed and home all the people in the world over the next 50 years (more so as we’re all living longer)

I don’t mind going green and I’m all for tidal power, recycling and Nuclear, I’m firmly opposed to Land based Wind Farms though and trying to Tax people to change their way’s . if one really want people to go green then tax less or pay them - everyone would go green overnight.

It’s more than that, its inevitable

No issues, its a nice honest clear debate amongst friends , and all good Friends will have differing views, but you’re still mates at the end of it

108

Fair point about these organisations not being wholly independent. But it doesn’t follow that the majority of the people in these organisations have necessarily sold all of their credibility to the government. There a lot of people listed on these IPCC reports - are you suggesting they’re all fraudulent? Then there’s the universities, where critical thinking is encouraged. University professors aren’t controlled from the top down in such great numbers.

My point is that we need a bit more to go on here before we start accusing people of actually being fraudulent. As with the Climategate emails (which were investigated and did not bring up any charges of fraudulent behaviour), we need more evidence before we can accuse the scientists involved.

To put on my sceptical hat, it could well be that independent organisations have been tempted with government money too. People can be tempted by money, no matter who they work for. So, even a completely independent study could be faked. But I won’t believe that until someone shows me some evidence.

I mentioned the moon landing conspiracy before. I see a parallel here between climate scepticism and moon landing scepticism. It’s possible that both were faked. But is it reasonable to believe that?

Thanks for clarifying your position. If it’s going to cost a significant amount to prepare for global warming and peak oil, would you be open to some sort of tax, providing the money was spent where needed the most? I agree that dealing with overpopulation, building sea and flood defences are important issues too. These issues can all be investigated by science to find out what would produce greatest well being for the population for the lowest cost in both the short and long term.

Well, the money to pay people to go green has to come from somewhere, hence taxes on polluting companies and financial incentives for those who go green. So it’s a matter of balancing the money, taking from some to pay for others. No easy task. The government has a better chance of balancing things than leaving the free market to though, that’s essentially what I’m arguing.

109

I was taking a look at the genocide of the bee population too and am surprised by how reactionary people are. The population has to die first before anyone will care. I mean, do people WANT to die?

Honestly. LOL.

I wanna move to Motavia already.

110

I don’t think evolution prepared us for the long term planning and cooperation required to combat these impending environmental disasters. Threats to our ancestors were more immediate, so people tend to be better at dealing with short term crisises. That’s not to say long term planning and reasoning is impossible, but reactionary decisions tend to be the default.

By the way, I enjoyed this talk on climate denialism and bridging the gap between political ideologies. The speaker believes climate change denial has been turned into an identity that people use to define themselves, rather than having a legitimate talk about the science.

“The fear is not of the science, but of the consequences of the science”.

111

Love the new quote Solo! :wink:

Naomi Klein is as impressive a luminary on these issues as I’ve seen lately. It’s actually been on my mind to possibly read Shock Doctrine for a while, but it can feel masochistic committing to a full body of material like that which, in character at least, will hold few surprises for me.

I had a convo with my landlord (for lack of any better descriptor) recently, getting an account of someone close to him with an exceptionally high IQ and education, who seems content to absorb Fox News’ tripe (as example) without any evident critical filter. Truly, once the enemy is at the gates, the impulses of compassion and moderation are suspended. Attempting engagement from a fundamental misapprehension of the state of mind of the opponent is… surely an exercise in futility.

At times I get so very close to a sense of clarity about it, the only possible answer - and I’m only being particular to North America here - resides in curing this political schizophrenia. While the right has zero integrity of consequence, the left’s hypocrisy is in a sense the more egregious, as they have lost their honest allegiance to humanism.

I’m recalling some notions from a half dream state recently: this relative phenomenon of the youth culture - even youth worship of a sort - has another side to it. The genuine liberal spirit has been very lost or sublimated since the 60’s/70’s, and those “baby boomers” ended up projecting all that unresolved aspiration and psychic liberation into their children, of course without much conscious integrity involved.

And there seems to be a quality of resignation there, even a devaluation of the property of experience. Like a formal contrition that yet clings to a yearning for redemption. And the intractability and calcification of age has effectively become more codified. Indeed the world is turning faster than ever, and that’s the common wisdom, but the irony is that the era of post-enlightenment was itself driven by a greater enabling of personal evolution. Greater chances for individuals to distinguish themselves beyond the inherently adolescent impulses of conquest and superficial aggrandizement.

It’s a curious time, “the children are our future” they love to say, and that cannot be argued. But it can seem like a mantra - a veritable justification - for having given up as well. “We failed to truly make sense of and OWN these feelings we can still remember, so now we’ll just fall back on all that same cruft we used to rail against and as a result pass on even more inherently conflicted reinforcements and conditioning, whilst secretly hoping you can make a better go of it all than we did… now have another toy.”

…

Well, as you all may have noticed I’ve been letting my associations run where they may. But this is the kind of noise that’s always squabbling underneath the hood anyway. :anjou_embarassed:

112

[quote=“Solo”]

By the way, I enjoyed this talk on climate denialism and bridging the gap between political ideologies. The speaker believes climate change denial has been turned into an identity that people use to define themselves, rather than having a legitimate talk about the science.

“The fear is not of the science, but of the consequences of the science”.[/quote]

I don’t deny Climate Change, I have issues with trying to pin it all on Man that is all.

I doubt doubt for a 2nd. But if the Science was so clear , we’ll be banning all Air Flight; all non essential cars journeys tomorrow , stopping the expansion of the Internet , Farming, shipping and earth’s population , but we aren’t

Ok I’n be very general here, but hope you get the point.

I have my doubts about many things . I believe the shit they inject into our food is more to play for the cancer rates, than Smoking (I’m a non smoker btw) and I don’t believe GM food is safe at all too, not matter what the experts say

On GM debate , where are you Solo mate ?

The age of Cheap Oil and easy Gas is gone. So whatever we do and which direction we go, it’s going to cost Billions.

Then Ring fence the money. I can tell you right now all the Green taxes raised from Tax from the Plane and Car user , isn’t put towards going Green at all; If that was the case the UK would be a world Leader

113

TA, again, you come across as railing against the politics as usual… yet on a given point you indicate a firm belief that same system should/would also be self correcting?

Probable (indeed certain) political and corporate exploitation of the issue, is itself a separate issue from the science and consequences. But you’ve shown a willingness to conflate them in your arguments. If you wish to place so much trust in the idea governments would become (essentially) altruistic; entirely realistic; and unanimously serious about the issue, just as soon as the facts were presented to them… again that’s your choice. But it’s not a choice that seems consistent with so much of the rest of your rhetoric.

And it’s not a perception at all consistent with the wealth of information and precedent. This opposing argument is all about the state of misinformation and misrepresentation, which is seemingly winning out in the popular mind-share at the moment. And that’s what politics ultimately is right? So the only genuine counter to that argument must be against the assertion of misrepresentation - which you have also given. But the rest is a sidestep, as it effectively presumes the condition of a clear and honest accounting has already been met.

The politics as usual will be in effect no matter what direction you’re looking at it from.

114

Background radiation in tokyo is below normal levels at the moment (Pre nuclear ‘disaster’) for those who want to know.

Just sayin is all.

Sure there were some rather funky meltdown indicating isotope particles found in seawater - but that is because they used sea water to COOL the partially meltdown-ing reactor. It’s only natural they’d be in the seawater.

So, don’t go licking the ground at the beach or whatever and you’ll be okay.

FEAR mongering is the worst part of this incident. Sure there was a risk, but there is a problem:

Japan’s media plays down the risk, and the west’s media plays-up the risk.

The truth is it was risky and very nearly a disaster, but not actually a disaster. (In terms of nuclear safety, not the natural disaster)

The incident is pretty much identical to what happened on Long Island near New York - with the exception of the flushing of seawater through the containments (so this is why no isotopes were found in water near Long Island).

You can complain about the slight increased risk of cancer from low-level background radiation if you want. But if you wan’t to complain about that, then you better also stop eating grilled meat and being friends with people who smoke since they actually increase your risk of cancer far more than low level background radiation ever will.

115

Nuclear energy has been set back by this for God knows how long now, which is a shame.

You are right Chris about people being too reactionary for their own good. I wonder if it’s possible to break that mental programming. After all, it’s not at all insane to predict the future based on the patterns seen in the past that help to shape that future.

This whole self-interest-to-forge-the-common-interest mentality is so crippling.

But because it is so profitable to maintain the status quo, it’s like trying to steer a tidal wave. We will need a solar flare to evaporate it.

The recession is still dragging everyone down as well. That’s further at the front of everyone’s minds I think. Now I remembered why I tried to completely forget reality. It’s so overrated.

116

America now seems to be a combination of the worst of capitalism with the worst of collectivism. It’s a dragon.

I’ll stick to liberal conservatism any day.

117

[quote=“The Ancient”]TA, again, you come across as railing against the politics as usual… yet on a given point you indicate a firm belief that same system should/would also be self correcting?
.[/quote]

I’m simply saying if the science was beyond doubt all non-commercial fights, use of car, shipping would be banned outright - they is only 1 Earth and only 1 chance to stop the warming, can you tell me why shipping doesn’t come under environmental treaty at all (despite being the most polluting form of transport there is)

And I have no double standards at all. I love the western life style , love using the internet , love having food on the table, like going on holidays aboard, like consoles, gadgets ECT .

I don’t want to give that up at all, and so it seems the same is true for those that ‘believe’ in the science.

118

Crap. Science shows that plenty of things are harmful yet they are not banned because they bring revenue. A case in point would be smoking. It shouldn?t come as a surprise that negative effects are ignored when the prospect of profit is involved.

Oh well! With attitudes like yours above, I guess we?re screwed.

Because the people who own and run the world are idiots and will not change their ways until they have to, probably after the rest of us have suffered the consequences. Again: why this is not obvious, I cannot imagine!

So the fact that people are hypocrites is proof that the science is false? I give up.

119

Any that can match up the the End of the World ?. If the Silence is right, City’s like London will be under water.

There is a BIG difference with this debate.

That’s not my attitude, its the so called experts view . We only have once chance to get it right and how it’s now no just a question of cutting carbon but also Life style change .

Not the ones that claim to believe in the science ?. Like I said it’s suite them for taxing the shit of out people though.

Not at all. But so many scientists love the western life style , love the car, love the gadgets and I bet a nice holiday in the Sun . If it for work then fair enough, but when it for pleasure its a different matter

Looking over that . The amount of Carbon that the scientists output flying and jetting into Canc?n, Mexico must have been in the billions . Where the need to Jet in, why not just have a conference over the internet ?.

120

TA: is it right for the western world to live in luxury at the expense of everyone else’s happiness?

No it is not, but you will find that a lot of people couldn’t care less about other parts of the world as long as such people benefit from their rape. This Neo-Imperialism has to end.

However, where I do absolutely unshakably agree with you is when it comes to sovereignty. Until greed becomes a relic of the past by virtue of being unnecessary, any kind of centralized power structure IS going to be exploited for the personal gain of the powers behind it.

Inevitably. That’s why we either limit power and make it transparent so there is enough accountability to correct mistakes, and/or endure this balance of powers we enjoy at the moment.

This IS a Trojan horse being used to undermine sovereignty, absolutely it is, but the problem itself is also very real with no one providing adequate solutions.

At the moment it is cheaper to hire immigrants than train natives etc etc and all production jobs went to slave labor countries. That’s GREED at work which needs to earn a profit before having any incentive to truly come back home. Everyone needs to become a part of that ladder. And sorry to my left wing friends, but socialism (a world where no one has more than they need) isn’t the answer. It’s too anti-growth and robs people of self-determination (even if that is only an illusion).