Your OP was a whistle to the local dogs, who are now barking at nothing. — Banno

Didn't think there were this many.

No one's opinions should be censored in our constitutional republic. PERIOD!!!!!! — charles ferraro

As if you have, or have ever had, any principle whatsoever. I think four years of Trump took away all doubt about the "integrity" of conservatives in this country. You're simply upset that Trump got booted from Twitter. Pretend to be outraged about "first amendment" issues, but it fools no one.

The social media platforms are major corporations. Corporations have far too much power in this country. Trump and the Republican Party gave them even greater power. Didn't seem to care about this issue back then, when handing out over a trillion in tax cuts. When it starts to effect them, suddenly they become trust-busters. So I laugh at your tears.

--

Opinions shouldn't be censored. These companies shouldn't have the monopolies they have, with zero regulation. They're also responsible for designing algorithms that accelerate dangerous disinformation. Now the government is asking them to better regulate themselves, as if this is the solution. It isn't.

Most of The Left do not want the mere reforms you've listed, we want to change, that is, replace "the system" – governmental & economic – completely. — 180 Proof

Well that's speculation. It's hard to say. Maybe they want structural changes in the form of Keynesian policies. Maybe they want an end to what's called "capitalism" altogether. What we do know is where the country stands on these issues. I think deep structural change is wanted -- I want it as well. But short of a revolution, that's not going to happen. Changes happen gradually and require hard work sustained over time. But as I said before, I'm all for radical changes if I'm missing something -- I'm there if there's a revolution. Give me something to sign and I'll sign it. But I don't see it happening in my lifetime. So we have to work within the confines of reality.

Specifically, we want to change the game from shareholder control to stakeholder control and not just change the rules which perpetuate "the status quo" (i.e. shareholder control). The latter are "liberals" at most, many are "conservatives" too and not what The Left consider "left", whereas the former are (radical) Leftists — 180 Proof

That's interesting you mention stakeholder control. I created a thread about that here. But a lot of that reminds me of greenwashing. I like the words, but it's probably just more delay tactics so we don't come for their blood.

It's funny you mention that as radical change, though. Unless you're meaning something different when you say "stakeholder control", which I take to mean companies taking into account customers, workers, environment, etc., rather than just shareholders (i.e., away from the Friedman Doctrine), I see it as more of a system we had in the 50s and 60s -- the era of managerialism and the "soulful corporation." I frankly think that is a welcome step forward, and we need to look no further than the economies of those decades to see what the effects could be.

But when I think "radical," I'm thinking worker ownership and control of industry, in the anarchist tradition (or anarco-syndicalist tradition anyway). I see this happening already in worker co-ops. Very successful.

That's how I see things and, to the extent we disagree, Xtrix, I suspect it's more of a matter of semantics than substance, and not worth quibbling over definitions & labels for me to get my point across when I say "the Left, as far as the Anerican electorate is concerned, are outnumbered (approximately?) 10:1" IMO. If you still disagree, then let's agree to disagree on the precise ratio, but I don't suspect we disagree that to a significant degree The Left is outnumbered by, let's call them, the Center-Right + Right in the US. Or do we disagree even on that? — 180 Proof

No, I was nit-picking. But I only did so because I think it's important to emphasize just how many people there are out there who think along similar lines. Whether the 10:1 ratio is correct or not in any other respect, I have no idea. Maybe you're right. But like you said, not terribly important. I don't think they're a silent majority, for example.

The very idea of there being an uprising is skipping steps, there isn't any other option than hard work by organizers and taking over local governments and councils, which accelerated due to the Sanders campaign. It's difficult to keep track of the work being done because we live in a continent sized country but it's there if you've been following your state politics, just don't expect to overturn the country in the next few years. — Saphsin

I think this is exactly right. Although I'm there if there's a revolution!

America has long been a majority center-right country and the left (which isn't by any stretch a monolith) is outnumbered, I hazard to guess, by a ratio of at least 10-to-1. — 180 Proof

The majority of Americans are in favor of taxing the rich, free public education, student debt relief, universal healthcare, climate change mitigation, gun reform, etc. Poll after poll. If that's what we mean by "left," then we by far have the numbers. So I don't think the 10-1 is accurate in that sense.

The problem is that we have no organization. We don't even have a labor party as most other comparable countries do. There are many reasons for this, of course, but chief among them (in my opinion) is the education system and the media. These are the institutions that control thought; they're called, respectively, indoctrination centers and propaganda outlets -- and this is accurate.

So we're left with apathy, disenfranchisement, passivity, hopelessness. Most importantly, the traditional means of circumventing these systems of thought control have been destroyed or weakened: unions, independent media, social groups, etc. There's also the cultivation of fear and hatred of one another. All this is to say nothing about the (structural) fact that we're also being worked to death, and so have little energy or time to dedicate to educating and organizing ourselves.

Add it up and it's no wonder there's not an organized "left" in this country. But it's there. The fact that people were shocked about the Sanders campaign should tell you something.

The non-establishment right aren't very organized either, they just fight a lot harder. They also have structural advantages electorally, so are disproportionately represented in government.

What exactly are you implying by "accept"?
— Xtrix
You accept the party when you just hope that the party would change it's course as an internal event. Or think that it's meaningless to vote for any other party however disappointed you are in the party: that your vote would be then "lost". — ssu

You're completely wrong about the first point. It's typical of those who apparently believe voting is the only political action available, in fact (not to say you're one of them, but this line of argument is often used by them).

But no, it's not about sitting back and "hoping." As I've said many times, it's about doing the opposite: not simply sitting down after voting and passively watching with fingers crossed, but organizing, activism, involvement, educating oneself and others, developing and pushing for programs, etc. The Sunrise Movement is a good example of this. There would be no Green New deal proposal if not for them. That's significant, and it's not simply a matter of voting. It's what happens after you vote where real change is created. I've said this all along.

As for the second, you're somewhat correct -- except in the case of a non-swing state, in which case there's some argument to be made for voting third party. To not vote at all, or to give your vote to a third party, in a swing state, rather than to the least damaging of the two parties (who will realistically come into power) is irrational and irresponsible. That's just a matter of counting. Whether it's meaningful is not the point -- it may very well be meaningful to you. But that doesn't circumvent arithmetic, our feelings of disappointment aside.

Socialism is like talking about "god" -- it can mean almost anything you want. If universal health care and free public education is socialism, fine. If not, that's fine too. Who cares. — Xtrix

One should care what parties are in favor of them. It's not actually socialism, you know. Many right-wing parties at least in Europe are for them. Good example is Sweden. Put often to be an example of socialism, the country is quite capitalistic and "capitalism friendly". Modern Social Democracy isn't totally against capitalism. — ssu

Again: talk of "socialism" and "capitalism" are essentially useless, at least until we define our terms. The point is the policies. So saying a country is "capitalist friendly" is meaningless to me. Most countries, as I think you're aware, are mixed economies. In the US, we're a state-capitalist economy. Massive state intervention on all levels. That's not the capitalism of Friedman or Smith or Ricardo.

So the point is the policies, and you're right -- we should see which parties support these policies, all labels aside. And it just so happens that the Democratic party in the United States are becoming more receptive to these policies, though we have a LONG way to go. Still, there's a progressive wing within in Sanders, AOC, Warren, Markey, and others. We can and should constantly hold them accountable criticize them mercilessly, push them further and further, etc. But given the Republican party, and how dangerous they are, the Democrats are also currently the best shot we have at getting anything through whatsoever. With the Republicans, there's no chance. Zero. In fact they now stand for the polar opposite of what we want policy-wise.

Right, because you're doing so much to change it by complaining about it on the internet.
— Xtrix
It really isn't my thing as a foreigner to do that. I'm still quite happy at politics in my country. The US-type polarization hasn't yet landed here. Hopefully the bullying never reaches these shores. — ssu

OK -- where do you live?

What I'm saying is that many people have these illusions on how much power the current political parties have and assume that the landscape is totally fixed. It isn't. In the US example a third party could rise to oppose the duopoly if it would have the strategy to start from the grass roots level, from communal and state level. Not thinking that a rapid dash of a third contender in the Presidential elections would do the job. It won't. To improve (or restore) democracy, one first has to believe in it. — ssu

Well count me as a believer. Count me as a believer in abolishing the electoral college. Count me in for overthrowing capitalism, for that matter.

There are lots of things I'd like to see happen, and I'll continuing pushing for them as long as I'm alive. But as you said, a national third party hasn't gained any traction yet. Ross Perot, oddly enough, garnered the most votes of any third party in decades with his "Reform Party" in 1992. Some say he only helped Clinton get elected. But regardless, if it's a matter of belief, then it's up to us to build up that belief, start small, and build up a third party and then hopefully spread to other states and, eventually, on a national level.

You're right, it's not inevitable. It's actually extremely odd that a country like ours doesn't have some kind of labor party. But as long as most people don't find that strange, it's unlikely to change.

Well, if you accept the two party system, then don't be surprised when nothing really changes. — ssu

What exactly are you implying by "accept"? I accept the electoral college too, and death for that matter. I don't like any of them. I work to change what can be changed. But at present, they're a reality. So yes, I accept reality despite my feelings, and work within that reality. I encourage everyone to do so.

Besides, a lot of younger Americans don't actually want socialism in the classic sense. — ssu

"in the classic sense" is meaningless. Socialism is like talking about "god" -- it can mean almost anything you want. If universal health care and free public education is socialism, fine. If not, that's fine too. Who cares.

So you both will uphold the two party system. — ssu

:roll: :yawn:

Right, because you're doing so much to change it by complaining about it on the internet.

I must be too stupid to understand why a big ball of molten rock - 4000 miles deep and 26,000 miles around, isn't a viable source of energy — counterpunch

Indeed. Despite it being explained to you over and over again.

I guess some people just need to believe they have a secret that solves the world's problems, despite knowing next to nothing about it. Oh well.

Cool, but if you break it down by country, you can see fertility rate vs CO2 footprint. — frank

Completely irrelevant. I was discussing overpopulation, not climate change.

And getting worse. But really because of the greed of only a few countries. Otherwise we could sustain our population for a while.

Still, to outright say "it's not a thing" is just more buffoonery. Much like the super-discovery of magma energy by an internet troll. — Xtrix

Over population is a real and horrible thing. — James Riley

And getting worse. But really because of the greed of only a few countries. Otherwise we could sustain our population for a while.

Still, to outright say "it's not a thing" is just more buffoonery. Much like the super-discovery of magma energy by an internet troll.

I can't explain why again, because I tried twice. Then again, they say third time's a charm. — counterpunch

Oh good, the crackpot is explaining something:

If you still don't get it, there's no need to contradict me again. — counterpunch

lol. Yes, because of the two of you, it's definitely he who "doesn't get it."

I want to commend you for an excellent post, and very informative. Nice to have someone who knows what they're talking about. Good luck getting through to the buffoon, but thank you for the reasoned responses for the rest of us.

Are you a geologist?

Bernie is more like the lure for those young Americans who basically are for social democracy (or that kind of stuff), yet Bernie will bow down to the party machine once the actual decision time comes. Bernie is all too happy to be "the second runner up" to what the party leaders want. And if he gets some legislation through, some success in moving the party to left, that is all he wants. — ssu

But this leaves out crucial details of the actual circumstances. There's a difference between "bowing down" and being a realist. Right now Manchin is in the way of most progressive legislation. Maybe some members like Manchin being the fall guy, since it lets them off the hook, and if any of it came to a vote they'd be on the fence themselves. Still, he and Sinema are outspoken, so that's the reality in a 50-50 senate.

We'll see what gets done -- if they can pass this latest bill through reconciliation, that'll be a good start. Not sure how much more Bernie can do essentially by himself (with maybe a handful of others on board).

So I really don't see this as fair criticism, especially once the reality of the situation is understood. Given the stakes in the world today, and the senate context, it's necessary to compromise -- otherwise the alternative is that nothing gets done. Given the situation we find ourselves in -- climate change, inequality, etc. -- we can't simply pout it all away. Much like the election last year, and those who advocated for not voting or voting third party because Bernie didn't advance, this is completely irrational.

You see, the Democratic Party isn't a social democratic party. Hence it simply won't go for universal health care or workers rights as a fully fledged social democratic party would do. In the US you have a centrist and a right-wing party. Simple as that. — ssu

Yes, truisms and cheap cynicism gets us much farther. Too bad the approach of wishing things away doesn't work.

True, the two-party system is awful. That the DNC didn't want Bernie and managed to beat him back is also true. The fact that they're not in favor of many of Bernie's proposals -- also true. I've said all that before myself, and this is widely known. Move on from that.

I don't care for Biden or the Democrats. They happen to be our only realistic bet for anything close to being done, and they're clearly more susceptible to being pushed in the right direction. Right now it's all proposals, and not much has been enacted -- but the proposals themselves are a change. To overlook this is just as unrealistic as being an "optimist" about things.

And the idea, implied by others here, that philosophy, whether on or offline, has hitherto been--or should be--free of accolades, status indicators, social pressure, and so on, strikes me as naive. — jamalrob

And it strikes me as naive to believe adding a like button is beneficial in any way. What’s the goal, exactly? What does it tell you? What is it encouraging?

I’ll tell you: it encourages posts to become a series of one-liners. You can find that in a YouTube comment section too.

If we want to encourage turning everyone into Henny Youngman, so be it.

How many posts someone has made is more informative. I hope you resist the temptation and turn it off.

I think the whole idea of rating is useless for this forum. We're (hopefully) here to discuss things -- it's not a popularity contest. When it turns into that, it becomes Twitter and Facebook.

If that's magma, fine. I've got no truck with your magma gospel. Get out there and get it done. — James Riley

Right on. Unfortunately we're dealing with an utter crackpot and science ignoramus, so all that will get done is more trolling on the internet.

I long for the day when utterly selfish profit-seeking homosexuals can get filthy rich selling weed.
Republicans in particular, quite recently, are turning their back on capitalism (economic freedom). — Kasperanza

Take your Ayn Rand bullshit and stick it.. No one is interested -- least of all me.



I agree with ssu that history is important, and that both parties are similar in that both have been bought off by corporate interests (among other things). I like Chomsky's assessment on this: "The Democrats are what used to be called moderate Republicans." I think that's true of the establishment to this day, while the Republicans have gone off the spectrum. But with the influence of Bernie's movement, I think that's beginning to change. We're hearing more sensible (and modest, by international standards) proposals -- universal healthcare, free public education, action on climate change, taxing the wealthy, etc. -- and that's having an effect.

On the other hand, I've been arguing along similar lines with James. It's simply false equivalence to throw our hands up and say "both parties are awful" and leave it at that. That may have been the case as far back as 1996 or even to some degree up to 2008 (at least John McCain had a climate change policy), but it's just obvious now that one party is clearly preferable to the other, despite all their flaws. If for no other reason than what we're seeing with Biden: they're at least capable of being persuaded/pushed into making decent moves. The Republicans? Forget it. They want to go the complete opposite way, so it's hopeless. I use climate change as a good contrast: one party says it's important and makes proposals (usually way to weak, etc), and the other does what? Says it's a hoax. Doesn't get more clear than that. So any kind of variation on the "What about the other side" argument is a pretty tired move to make at this point. Yes, most of us are well aware of the flaws of the Democrats. I'd like to see the two-party system change. But it's what we have right now. So given the choices, I think it's clear which is preferable -- IF we profess to care about the planet, healthcare, the poor, etc.

You're an extremely angry person. — frank

Seems like an odd thing to say, but OK.

:lol:

Evidence, to show what? What exactly is it that you want me to prove? What is it that you can't google for yourself? — counterpunch

If I recommended a book, what are you going to do? Run out and buy it? Read it so we can discuss it? What the point? — counterpunch

Lol. So confused! What is this "reference" you ask for?! I'm a wealth of information about this subject, having read and worried about it for years, but there's no need to point to a single source about the topic when you can Google it all yourself! True, I'm the one making the claims and in fact raising this subject in the first place, but never mind that -- take me on faith, and don't expect me to provide YOU with anything of substance. I'm not your secretary.

Etc.

You have no idea what you're talking about, pal. So don't worry your little head about references or evidence for your crackpot ramblings. Just be happy with knowing that you've cracked the climate crisis -- and I hope humanity starts listening to your extraordinary solution! Well done!

All the rest of it e.g. low taxes, small government, strong military defense, prayer in schools, pro-life, family values, second amendment rights, "America First", reverse discrimination, "Law & Order", "War on Drugs", etc are just window-dressing and bloody chum tossed out to lure sufficient numbers of unwitting, know-nothing/opportunistic centrists to their "cause" in order to cobble together electoral majorities as needed. — 180 Proof

I see it a little differently. I would add racism and fear of "White replacement" on your list of bloody chum. It's become just as embedded in the party as the anti-abortion position, no doubt. As far as being the first priority upon which the others rest, I think that honor goes to anti-New Deal sentiments, exemplified by the thinking of Milton Friedman and others, and enacted under Reagan. It's neoliberalism through and through.

Today it's embodied completely by McConnell, and Paul Ryan before him. Privatize everything by defunding the programs that work for people -- education, Medicare, social security. They were (and are) up front about it. They've been trying to reverse New Deal programs for years, and have systematically succeeded -- especially in the 80s. You recall Shad's appointment to the SEC, as one example. Can't get more obvious than that.

The rest is, as you say, convenient positions taken to secure a patchwork of a coalition. Whip them into a frenzy about "culture issues" like transgender bathrooms, kneeling athletes, Mr. Potato Head, and of course the "crisis" du jour: critical race theory. Distract them, demonize the left as much as possible, and even embrace Donald Trump as the face of your party -- as long as you get to push through those tax cuts, and as long as nothing fundamentally changes in this country, who cares? That's the current Republican party, in my view.

It started in the 1980s. Read David Harvey's Brief History of Neoliberalism — frank

I haven't yet, but this is the second time it's been recommended to me. Look forward to getting around to it.

The Republicans just look more insane for you. Here it should be good to take a few steps back a glance at the politics from another viewpoint. — ssu

They do look more insane to me, yes. That goes without saying. But I have no loyalty to the Democratic party either. I see what more conservative minded people think of the Democrats, and a lot of it does appear crazy as well. But I'd challenge anyone to show any kind of parity these days.

Yet I think many Americans still are in the center. — ssu

It certainly seems that way, from the numbers. It's worth remembering that of the population that votes, the biggest group are the independents. They split fairly evenly in where they "lean," but it's a surprising fact for many people. Especially if you spend all your time on Twitter, Facebook, etc.

The Republican party exists to line the pockets of their friends and sponsors (and their own as well, of course); to assure that the wealthy and large corporations are predominant in politics; to maintain the status quo socially and culturally; and finally, to convince those who are less fortunate that they should remain so because that is in their own interest and that of the United States. — Ciceronianus the White

A pretty damn good summary, in my opinion.

Is it that - having me point out a possible, but seemingly unlikely means of securing a sustainable future implies horrors too terrible to contemplate? Because, if that's why you would rather not hear from me - I'd counter that's exactly why you need to listen. — counterpunch

No, it's you who need to listen. I didn't say a word of that. You've put those words in my mouth.

I'll repeat: you preach about something you don't understand. You offer to evidence, no research, and refuse even to provide a single link. Later, you admit there *is* no research, and that you're essentially going on your gut. This is why no one is interested. Otherwise, I'm all for magma energy -- and I hope I'm completely wrong and you turn out to be completely right -- I would love nothing more. But anyone can go around claiming they have the silver bullet. Anyone. Without evidence, it's just a claim by a non-expert on the internet. My claim for geo-engineering (as an example) is just as relevant, in that case.

Sustainability is the biggest philosophical question we have ever faced, and your cowardly viciousness doesn't alter the fact I've been thinking about this, reading about it, and worrying for over 25 years. I know what I think about the most important philosophical question of our time, and what I think is at least interesting, but if you're not interested please feel free to go fuck yourself elsewhere! — counterpunch

The fact that you're this defensive, and apparently too blind to see what others are trying to show you here, tells me that this really isn't about sustainability at all. It's about you wanting to believe you've found something other people (including thousands of experts) have somehow ignored. That's your own issue.

So you've been "thinking about, reading about, and worrying about" this for 25 years, yet provide no references whatsoever? Interesting.

magma is potentially, a high grade source of limitless base load power.
— counterpunch

So is absolutely any source whatsoever according to your current usage of 'potentially', which seems to include anything anyone reckons. — Isaac

100% correct. The difference? This happens to be something he's staked his identity on. Good to know, so I can ignore him easily in future conversations. Just placate him and maybe he'll go away.

The fact that anyone can delude themselves into believing they've got an answer to a global crisis is astounding enough. But then to demonstrate no expertise whatsoever, and no references, is beyond the pale.

Capitalism works. Capitalism has the knowledge, technology and skills to develop and apply the technology. — counterpunch

Ah, the picture becomes clearer now.

Capitalism has the knowledge and skills. Good ol' capitalism. Such a fine head on his shoulders.

It is the prevailing economic paradigm — counterpunch

No, it isn't. Because capitalism doesn't exist anywhere. What we have is a state-capitalist system, with massive state intervention on all levels. Subsidies, bailouts, a central bank, etc. etc. We have what boils down to a corporate welfare/socialist system. It's easy to see, when you look around.

I wasn't closely following the debate with the crackpot, — SophistiCat

I laughed at this.

I'm saying a left wing anti-capitalist green commie approach to sustainability is wrong — counterpunch

:rofl:

Hard to believe I took you seriously early on. Silly me.

Wind and solar are weak and inconstant, while magma energy can give us vast, constant base load power. — counterpunch

No, it can’t. I’ll present just as much evidence to support this claim as you have with yours: my gut feelings.

Just stop already. You don’t know what you’re talking about. You offer no evidence. You have no expertise. You admit there’s no research on this yet. So why continue on? The fact that you think you’re “really on to something” just sounds embarrassing.

I’m sure your heart is in the right place, but now you’re just sounding ridiculous. Your point has been made— move on.

What I propose hasn't been done. As far as I'm aware, the research doesn't exist. There is other research that is relevant in some respect, a piece of technology here, a geological fact there, but as far as I'm aware, there are no significant plans to plug into the planet at scale. — counterpunch

Okay— then why go around repeating this dream over and over again? Are you an engineer? Or geologist? Or geophysicist? No? Then enough already. No one is interested in your delusions of grandeur.

I could “propose” something too— so what? I can propose we geoengineer the planet to cool it down. I’ll go around preaching this, offer no evidence or references about it, and then act surprised when people ignore me.

But gathering a weak and inconstant form of energy from 225,000 square miles - just to meet current global energy demand; the staggering ongoing costs of constructing and maintaining such an array, and the question of recycling and replacing those panels after 25 years, to say nothing of the facilities required to store that energy, we be locked in and bankrupted, and have no more energy to spend than before. — counterpunch

No, solar and wind are cheaper than fossil fuels now. You haven’t been paying attention. They pay for themselves within a few years. But most importantly, they’re green. Any issue with them — replacement, etc — pales in comparison to fossil fuels and the magma technology which you propose— which would currently be hugely expensive. But since you provide no numbers, we can only guess. Since it’s not being done, we can assume why.

True, we can think some internet guy has figured it all out and that actual experts have overlooked this amazing discovery— but forgive me if I don’t bet on that.

You given nothing to indicate the underlined. Everything you say might be nonsense for all we know because you refuse to cite anything. — Isaac

Yes, and that’s pretty suspicious to me. It doesn’t take long to provide some links or references. So far it’s been nothing but gut feelings, which is of no value whatsoever.

That some industry is subsidized or, well, basically the whole government is running on money printed by the Central bank, doesn't change either the Democrats or the Republicans having their differences. — ssu

An important point, and worth mentioning again and again.

There are indeed differences between the parties, despite being beholden to special interests. Those who want to claim they’re “all the same” are being mentally lazy, and overlooks both what you’ve pointed out (written policies) as well as actions.

It seems these days the differences are becoming more extreme, with the Republicans going insane. The left are becoming more progressive, which I would argue is a good thing, though many would claim, predictably, is “just as insane” — while pointing to some misconception they’ve heard from Fox. But I’d hardly say that compares to QAnon or Trump worship— which is taking over the base.

In a powerful country, even small differences make a big impact.

ell, if the Republicans are a political party, then presumably there is a political position somewhere like conservatism, capitalism, anti-socialism, etc. — Apollodorus

They do seem to love “capitalism,” yes. But a particular brand of capitalism: namely, anti-New Deal capitalism. The last 40 years has been a reaction to those policies, in a sense. No surprise it’s been a complete disaster.

Usually parties would have an official webpage where this information would be easy to find. — ssu

When you look at that above, it actually does say what modern GOP is all about. — ssu

I see no reason to take what’s written down too seriously. It’s kind of a joke, actually. For example:

A free enterprise society unencumbered by government interference or subsidies.

The oil industry in Texas has received huge subsidies from the government— federally and state-wide.

What’s professed and what’s actually believed are two different things, of course, and we should look at real actions to determine which is which.

Both parties are beholden to wealthy interests, and the rest is a matter of degree. What the Republicans seem to stand for, ultimately, is complete loyalty to their corporate masters. It’s impressive.

I feel the only way to escape this paradox is to say that we are designed by some higher truth in the universe. — Franz Liszt

But that could just as easily be delusional.

I think you're caught up in a semantic jumble. People love to throw around "science" and "logic" and "atheism," but first we should ask some questions about those words -- like, "What do they mean?"

What am I not believing in as an "atheist"? God? What's God? A sky-father humanoid? A "higher truth"? Love? Nature?

What is science? Seems to me it's a human activity, involving faculties of thought and creativity -- similar to philosophy, in fact.

And on and on. I don't think it does much good invoking something like a "higher truth," because that's just as meaningless as "God" or "being" or "force" or anything else you like -- it becomes an x, and can be defined almost any way we want. I don't see this adding anything to the world.

I think this is one piece of a larger picture of wealth transfer.
— Xtrix
It's roughly 700 Billion a year literally by the government to the military suppliers. What larger one did you have in mind? — Cheshire

The trillions of dollars transferred to the wealthy due to (mainly) Republican policies for the last 40 years.

https://www.rand.org/pubs/working_papers/WRA516-1.html

what do they stand for, at bottom?
— Xtrix

Fear.
Donald Trump.
Some Republicans are on board with their base.
Some Republicans disagree with their base on principle, but subordinate that disagreement with a desire to keep the base.
Some Republicans disagree with their base and would not subordinate their disagreement with their base but they are under threat of physical violence or extortion from their base.
Fear. — James Riley

Well that's the base. All of that seems to be true: fear of being "replaced" by minorities, fear that their way of life is changing for the worse, some legitimate grievances about stagnation, etc. Most adore Trump. But I was talking about he leaders, the establishment. Most of them don't really like Trump at all. Like McConnell. What do they really stand for anymore? Or is it the same thing they've stood for since the 70s?

They maintain the economic dynamic of an economy that relies on wealth transfer to weapons manufacturing in order to sustain a manufacturing base. — Cheshire

I think this is one piece of a larger picture of wealth transfer.

It would be difficult to distill a consistent Republican philosophy from Nixon to Reagan to Bush Sr., to GW, to Trump, domestically or in foreign policy.

Today, it's a party of cult, with absolute allegiance to Trump required.

When not in power, it's an opposition party with little affirmative plans. — Hanover

True. Although I think since Reagan there's a few ideas which have stuck around: "Government is the problem," and cutting taxes.

It does seem like when they're not in power, their strategy is to make the government as dysfunctional as possible, so they can blame the Democrats and get re-elected. It would help perhaps if the Democrats fought a little harder.

Geothermal energy is an existent facet of energy science and engineering. There are already thousands of experts in the field. It's what they believe that is of relevance. — Isaac

Exactly right. I was thinking along similar lines.

There's a famous saying that fusion has been 5 years away for the past 30 years. And that was 20 years ago. It's still five years away. I'm not optimistic. Drilling for magma energy seems a lot more certain, and a less complicated source of energy. — counterpunch

Yes but you have no empirical basis for this. If it’s simply a gut feeling— who cares?

If you’re going to advocate as strongly as you have been for it, I’d expect you to know more about it and tell us where the research is at. You yourself admit that you haven’t really done that.

So what all this talk amounts to is strongly advocating for something you FEEL is potentially a great solution. Others may sincerely feel it’s nuclear energy. Or wind. Or solar. Or geoengineering.

Not very interesting or informative, unfortunately.

Of course, it will be difficult to do - a complex engineering challenge, but it is at least conceivably feasible. There is a vast source of energy there; large enough to make sense of our response to climate change. We need that energy. Are you saying it is technologically impossible to harness the heat energy of the planet on a large scale? I think otherwise. — counterpunch

We do need that energy. But it won’t work everywhere, and the technology isn’t advanced yet. I’d love to see it work, and it’s important to talk about. We should be spending a good deal of money researching and developing this option.

But again—this is one option. It’s not a panacea.

A disinterested view of the science seems to recommend we harness the massive heat energy of magma to produce limitless electrical power - to sustain civilisations carbon free, and to capture carbon, produce hydrogen fuel, desalinate and irrigate, and recycle — counterpunch

This is one option which has been used for years—nothing new. But we need more than geothermal. You have to have the right conditions for it to be viable. It may work well in Iceland or Hawaii, but it can’t work everywhere.

Wind, solar, hydro, and nuclear are all going to be necessary. Becoming dogmatic about one option, or treating it as a silver bullet, isn’t helpful.

You keep saying I want to comfort myself by not calling it an existential threat, but that was never my intention. At every opportunity I said it was going to be very bad... but not an existential threat. I agree that we shouldn't be comforting ourselves by underestimating the risk or ignoring small risks with grave consequences, but at the same time we shouldn't overstate how bad it's going to be either, because really it's bad enough as it is. — ChatteringMonkey

Have it your way. So any time I say "existential" just translate that as "very, very bad." Still, even if there's a small chance that it's existential -- as you said, we should be taking that very seriously. That was my only point. I can't see how that doesn't motivate people more, unless it gets interpreted as "we're all doomed," which isn't the case.

Anyway I think we actually agree for the most part, just not on the way we want to communicate the issue. I think you lose credibility by overstating the case and people get desensitized by continual doomsaying (i.e. the boy cried wolf), while you seem to think we need to spur people into action by putting it into the strongest of terms. — ChatteringMonkey

You could be right in the way it's communicated -- I have no way of knowing. But I do think the hothouse earth scenarios are not talked about nearly enough. Will Steffen's version, not the media saying the world's going to end in 10 years or something ridiculous. That indeed is foolish, not because it's too shocking but because it isn't true.

That we could reach tipping points that run out of control is a possibility, and a serious one which we should consider.

And I think accurate assessment of risks matters, for the kind of measures we are willing to take. If it really were an impending existential threat or even "just" a civilization collapsing threat, a la a large asteroid about to impact, we should we willing to contemplate the most drastic of measure, like shutting down all fossil fuels and slaughtering all livestock overnight, pumping aerosols into the atmosphere, declaring war on nations that aren't complying with zero-emissions etc... Some measure would be more or less disruptive for our societies. That's the question for me.... not should we do something about it, but how far and how fast should we be willing to go? How much disruption to current societies do the risks warrant? — ChatteringMonkey

If people understood the risks, I think we should be disrupting the world much more than the pandemic did. But even if we shut things down, as the pandemic did, or something on that level, I think that would probably be more than enough to solve this issue. We don't even need that extreme level, though -- there are sensible solutions which we have right now. The problem is political will -- which isn't coming from the population, unfortunately. That's a failure in education, a success for propaganda, a failure of the media, and a major failure of corporate America, who'd rather sell the future than do anything right now about this issue.

It's kind of obvious that you don't know much about this and other features of climate change. — frank

:lol: Truly out of Trump’s playbook: look like a complete buffoon, then simply pretend like you’re a very stable genius. Well done. You’re right: you’ve shown multiple times just how knowledgeable you are about climate science.

Whatever I know about climate change, this much I’m clear on: I know more about it than you. Can’t speak for others.

You looked at decline. I said shutdown. — frank

Which is so idiotic I didn’t think it was serious. That’s my fault for thinking you were making more sense than you were. I’ll work on that.

As the IPCC says— which, given your climate expertise you must know— there’s almost no chance that there’s a complete shutdown. Even if there were, we don’t know what would happen.

But please keep lecturing— so far you’ve earned that right.

So the earth will cool down is what you "think", eh?
— Xtrix

Guess what happens if the AMOC shuts down. — frank

Yes, and you've definitely shown yourself to be someone who can tell us.

For those interested in the actual science:

"In climate model simulations of future climate change, the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) is projected to decline. However, the impacts of this decline, relative to other changes, remain to be identified. Here we address this problem by analyzing 30 idealized abrupt-4xCO2 climate model simulations. We find that in models with larger AMOC decline, there is a minimum warming in the North Atlantic, a southward displacement of the Inter-tropical Convergence Zone, and a poleward shift of the mid-latitude jet. The changes in the models with smaller AMOC decline are drastically different: there is a relatively larger warming in the North Atlantic, the precipitation response exhibits a wet-get-wetter, dry-get-drier pattern, and there are smaller displacements of the mid-latitude jet. Our study indicates that the AMOC is a major source of inter-model uncertainty, and continued observational efforts are needed to constrain the AMOC response in future climate change."

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-24015-w

How odd that it's not as simplistic as Frank would like to believe.

Earth cooling down is what I think'll happen. — TheMadFool

Okay, so no need to answer my question above -- apparently it wasn't a joke.

So the earth will cool down is what you "think", eh? Guess we can tell those idiots who've studied this carefully all their lives that they're wasting their time -- some guy on the Internet has figured it out from perusing the literature and using his keen philosophical powers.

It's not an existential threat, not even close.
— ChatteringMonkey
Really? It certainly is for some people and some nations. Killed some, and soon will make some uninhabitable. Of course, those aren't the important people, so voila, no existential threat! — tim wood

Good point.

If we're going to split hairs about the word "existential," then how about instead of meaning the "human species" we mean the people of Bangladesh? What about them? Or India? Or some of the Polynesian islands? Tell those people it's not "existential."