[One Degree]

I was thinking about @Eauz signature.

It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness. - Karl Marx

It makes sense our brains are devised to interpret the environment. This means our conscious acts are determined by the input (social existence) as a survival mechanism. However our consciousness is not really controlled by it because we can change our social environment.
My point being, to change the current system we must change our own input first. Decide on our goal and then reject the input (arguments) why we can’t do it. I honestly believe we can choose to bring any system into reality simply by the vast majority agreeing it is already a done deal. As long as we distract ourselves with economic fears, then we won’t truly accept the change we say we want.
Oh well, probably rambling because I can’t seem to find the right words to explain what I mean.

[Sivad]

[/b]Democrats are total hypocrites on the issue.
When they talk about the effects of jet travel, international trade, and the military, I will take them seriously.

I'm gonna need more than that. I'm gonna need a solid demonstration of good faith from the global technocratic elite. If they abandon neoliberalism and implement radical democratic, labor, and environmental reforms across the world then I'll start taking them seriously on climate change. I could take it somewhat seriously if the transnational technocracy just proposed a set of solutions that didn't massively benefit them as a class.

[Oxymandias]

@Albert

[One Degree]

@Albert

What rubbish. Why should you not protect beliefs that have lasted thousands of years? What fool willingly gives them up in a generation due to complaints?
Minorities are not fighting for protection. Those laws are in place. They are complaining without offering solutions because we have already implemented the solutions. Enforcing laws for everyone equally is all that needs done. Any law that mentions groups is undemocratic.

[Oxymandias]

@One Degree

Listen man I'm on your side I am assimilating.

What rubbish. Why should you not protect beliefs that have lasted thousands of years? What fool willingly gives them up in a generation due to complaints?

I disagree. My conservative beliefs which have been held for thousands of years are revolutionary; never before seen. The world is controlled by a liberal deep state that is also jewish for some reason.

Minorities are not fighting for protection. Those laws are in place. They are complaining without offering solutions because we have already implemented the solutions. Enforcing laws for everyone equally is all that needs done. Any law that mentions groups is undemocratic.

You're right. Not only that, but why even give them rights in the first place? It's not like they can handle them anyway. This scientific article which doesn't prove my point but I am linking regardless on the basis of it's title which is so vague that it can support either sets of conclusions supports my claim. We should abolish minorities rights and make them serve the majority. It's not like they have a sense of agency or are capable of thinking independently of what a presumably white enterprise is telling them to think.

[One Degree]

@One Degree

Listen man I'm on your side I am assimilating.



I disagree. My conservative beliefs which have been held for thousands of years are revolutionary; never before seen. The world is controlled by a liberal deep state that is also jewish for some reason.



You're right. Not only that, but why even give them rights in the first place? It's not like they can handle them anyway. This scientific article which doesn't prove my point but I am linking regardless on the basis of it's title which is so vague that it can support either sets of conclusions supports my claim. We should abolish minorities rights and make them serve the majority. It's not like they have a sense of agency or are capable of thinking independently of what a presumably white enterprise is telling them to think.

I believe everyone should be allowed to protect their cultural beliefs. I don’t believe race needs to be a consideration, but it is. It is only because it is an accident of our development that it is. The current racial divide in the US is mainly manipulation of the people’s perception and telling them assimilation is betrayal of their race. Some, from all races, simply don’t want to assimilate and should be allowed communities of their own.

[Sivad]

Real change is possible but it has to start with one very small strategic change that can lead to progressively larger changes. The first small change that everyone dissatisfied with the current system should be focusing on is instant runoff voting. You get IRV and then you got the power to leverage bigger changes. With IRV you can get ballot access reform. With IRV and ballot access reform you can get campaign finance reform. With those three you can get redistricting reform and media/debate access reform, and on from there. Once you remove all the structural impediments the establishment has installed into the electoral system the only limit to popular power will be the people's willingness to be fair and honest with each other.

[Oxymandias]

@One Degree

I believe everyone should be allowed to protect their cultural beliefs. I don’t believe race needs to be a consideration, but it is. It is only because it is an accident of our development that it is. The current racial divide in the US is mainly manipulation of the people’s perception and telling them assimilation is betrayal of their race. Some, from all races, simply don’t want to assimilate and should be allowed communities of their own.

yeah we should kick minorities out (it's white America anyways lol) and let them form their own communists else where (they fail because black ppl r mankeys). #GODEMPERORTRUMP

[Steve_American]

Real change is possible but it has to start with one very small strategic change that can lead to progressively larger changes. The first small change that everyone dissatisfied with the current system should be focusing on is instant runoff voting. You get IRV and then you got the power to leverage bigger changes. With IRV you can get ballot access reform. With IRV and ballot access reform you can get campaign finance reform. With those three you can get redistricting reform and media/debate access reform, and on from there. Once you remove all the structural impediments the establishment has installed into the electoral system the only limit to popular power will be the people's willingness to be fair and honest with each other.

Normally I would agree with this completely.
However, we don't have time for this.
The IPCC report gives us just 12 years to stop climate change.
Getting new election campaign finance laws in place would take that long at least. The US SC has declared such laws unconstitutional.
How do you intend to solve that roadblock soon enough to do any good?

[Sivad]

Normally I would agree with this completely.
However, we don't have time for this.
The IPCC report gives us just 12 years to stop climate change.

Then I guess we're all doomed because people don't want the bullshit carbon taxes or the bullshit green energy. You wanna see the deplorables get riled try doubling their cost of living, the whole federal government will be solid republican in two election cycles.

[Steve_American]

@Sivad,
I proposed that the progressives go out in the streets to show the world that they are mad as hell and not going to take it any longer.

You said lets go slow and gradual.

I said, we don't have time for that.

You said that the American people don't want a carbon tax or green energy.
How does that follow or relate to what I wrote?

[Sivad]

How does that follow or relate to what I wrote?

I don't know, I hope the climate does wipe out civilization. I hope the IPCC is right but I doubt it.

[JohnRawls]

Normally I would agree with this completely.
However, we don't have time for this.
The IPCC report gives us just 12 years to stop climate change.
Getting new election campaign finance laws in place would take that long at least. The US SC has declared such laws unconstitutional.
How do you intend to solve that roadblock soon enough to do any good?

We definately have longer than 12 years to stop climate change. The issue is that how much damage will be done before we really start doing something.

The more damage we do, the harder it will be later on. This will require a shift in our lifestyles. The main sources of carbon and the solutions are not exactly what you think actually.

a) Main source of carbon emissions, bar none is agriculture or more specifically meat production. It produces around 80% nitrous oxide. The meat that we consume produces more nitrous oxide than all of our planes,vehicles,power stations etc combined and then some more multiplied by 4 times. So the first step that we can do is cut our consumption of meat. This alone should reduce nitrous oxide emissions by 50%. Producing plants is much more efficient way of transfering energy in to carbs basically.(If i remember, meat production converts only 1% in to actuall meat) But are many people really interested in this ? On top of that, the livestock itself produces carbon dioxide so less livestock = less carbon dioxade. (By how much? 5-10%?)

b) Going green, requires us to switch to solar,wind,nuclear energies instead of carbon fuel based solutions. Simply using electrical cars is a stupid solution. Where do you think the energy for those cars comes from?
This brings up an unsolved issue in the green energy industry. How do we store that power? Or how do we get a constant/static input and output if we can't store it? Also how do we move it around without loosing that energy if we can't produce it everywhere.

There is more but the upper 2 things are the most crucial.

[One Degree]

Not eating meat won’t won’t stop animals from reproducing. Are we just going to kill them and not eat them? Ignoring the obvious solution that humans need culled means no other solution will be effective. You can’t pretend the real problem away. Let’s have 100 less steers so we can have 100 more vegetarian humans is silliness.

[JohnRawls]

Not eating meat won’t won’t stop animals from reproducing. Are we just going to kill them and not eat them? Ignoring the obvious solution that humans need culled means no other solution will be effective. You can’t pretend the real problem away. Let’s have 100 less steers so we can have 100 more vegetarian humans is silliness.

Our livestock numbers will go down if we start consuming less meat. So yeah, obvious solution is to kill some of the livestock and reduce consumption of meat in particular. Plants are much more efficient to produce compared to meat. Not that I would personally like to live without meat. This is the problem.

[Godstud]

Humans changing to insect-based protein is the obvious solution. They take far less space, and are far more efficient. Plants are insufficient for the protein needs of humans(particularly in children).

Most Vegans look like pretty unhealthy individuals.

[Eauz]

@Godstud, the obvious solution is an overhaul of the socioeconomic system that is rooted in constant consumption by individuals. The idea that we need to replace beef with insects so that we can continue our consumer behaviour is ridiculous. We have to move away from the constant need to over-consume and focus on food no longer as a commodity but as part of the community and society.

[Negotiator]

Well, that depends upon what you mean with "system".

The current system of the USA is that people get voted based on how much funding their election campaign gets.

This is in place since the late 19. century.

It asserts that only politicians get in power that are liked by the superrich, because usually they are the ones funding those campaigns.

There was one recent exception and that was Bernie Sanders. First time around Obama also got much funding from the people. The core mechanism however still works nicely. If you're a successful mainstream politician, you work for the financial elite.

Also of course the mainstream media is in the hands of the same superrich; as it is in really any western democracy. Its just more extreme in the USA than in other places.

You expect this system to support politics for the general public ? Good luck with that. I dont think that will ever happen.

Most Vegans look like pretty unhealthy individuals.

Wtf ?!? I have never ever met a single person who could tell by looking at me I'm a vegetarian.

Besides, like half of Hollywood is vegetarians. And they obviously all look healthy and beautiful.

[Negotiator]

We definately have longer than 12 years to stop climate change.

Err ... climate "change" or much more precisely collapse or catastrophe has already started, the average temperature has already risen by one degree[1], and we already see the first consequences, like increased storms all over the globe, a very dry summer here in Germany, etc.

For comparison: last ice age in europe was a change of 3 degrees. That was enough to make the whole continent covered in ice.

Additionally if temperature rises so much that the permafrost in Russia starts to melt, an unknown amount of methane covered under the permafrost in Russia might get released, which might result in a runaway reaction. That means a massive rise in temperature in a short time might happen, I heard estimates of 8 degree.

So yeah, stopping climate change ? Too late. We can only reduce the consequences now.

Btw, the first warnings that this might happen date from the 1960s. In the 1970s we already had the Club of Rome warning us. Ever since - nothing has been done.


[1]: Celsius or Kelvin, of course. I only do metric. All you get for mentioning "Fahrenheit" to me will be a blank stare. Same for "feet", "stone", "inch", "mile", etc.

[JohnRawls]

Err ... climate "change" or much more precisely collapse or catastrophe has already started, the average temperature has already risen by one degree[1], and we already see the first consequences, like increased storms all over the globe, a very dry summer here in Germany, etc.

For comparison: last ice age in europe was a change of 3 degrees. That was enough to make the whole continent covered in ice.

Additionally if temperature rises so much that the permafrost in Russia starts to melt, an unknown amount of methane covered under the permafrost in Russia might get released, which might result in a runaway reaction. That means a massive rise in temperature in a short time might happen, I heard estimates of 8 degree.

So yeah, stopping climate change ? Too late. We can only reduce the consequences now.

Btw, the first warnings that this might happen date from the 1960s. In the 1970s we already had the Club of Rome warning us. Ever since - nothing has been done.


[1]: Celsius or Kelvin, of course. I only do metric. All you get for mentioning "Fahrenheit" to me will be a blank stare. Same for "feet", "stone", "inch", "mile", etc.

My point being is that climate change in itself is not Catastrophic if it is moderate nor is it bad per se. Warmer temperature in general is beneficial for Europe -> Northern European countries along with Central European countries gain the most but causes issues for the South. Those issues are not unbearable though so it is also okay for them in that regard.

Now having said that, it doesn't mean we have to not do anything about it. Our goal should be to fully tame this change and make it serve our purposes. (Channeled Karl Marx here)

We need to be able to control this change and make it so the temperatures do not deviate between certain limits.(Up and Down) And other factors also so we can have a more stable environment than we ever had. This is a big opportunity for us to provide the best living standards for our people and if the rest of the world doesn't want to do it then so be it. We will be in the forefront and we will control climate if need be to the detriment of others if they are not willing to participate in this long term.

So a summary: Climate change is not bad but uncontrollable climate change is bad. Currently we have uncontrollable one. The process in itself can be used to our benefit if we can tame it. Reverting to status quo (Pre-industrialisation levels of emission) should be a stop gap on the path while we find ways to tame the situation.