but if it's annual number of registrations — counterpunch

It is, cars are registered just once.

Anyway, as Baden is closing this thread and there might be another better thread to discuss just what to do with the global economy to address climate change, it might be good end with comments more along the lines of this thread.

One of the basic things for a forum like this is to represent different opinions and that those differences in opinion are discussed on the higher intellectual level than with the typical vitriol and ad hominem attacks, which your average social media discourse descends to. A central question is the role of the government and the role of the markets. Your answer above, , shows obviously that you have thought about the issue, but firmly believe in a top down lead manner for the change to come. I think it is one of the most important arguments that divide the left and the right.

While I agree as a conservative that markets have their problems and the market mechanism cannot take care of everything in the society (as anarcho-capitalists believe), the mechanism can do a lot and has done a lot. The failure of Soviet style centralized planning shows this, yet one should also remind that the Chinese, who (at least the leadership) firmly believe that they are communists, have done well just by partly using the market mechanism. Yet transformations that basically nobody saw coming in the government and couldn't be planned ahead happen with the free market system. And this is crucial. Economic history has showed so many times that with innovations and new technological breakthroughs that lead to new industries cannot be pre-planned centrally, but are usually done by some eccentric hobbyists at start.

Nobody gets to define what is acceptable, but everyone gets to judge what is acceptable. — Michael

Its the same thing.

No I don't. I think that it's acceptable to criticize people for being racist or sexist or homophobic but not acceptable to criticize people for being black or a woman or gay. — Michael

What about criticizing people for being white, as in "white privilege"?

You seem to think that your judgements of what is acceptable, is more acceptable than what others judge as acceptable.

Politics is just another word for hypocrisy.

Its the same thing. — Harry Hindu

Not if there is an objective fact of the matter. Something either is or isn't acceptable, whatever any person believes, and none of us get to define it to be another way. For example, pedophilia is unacceptable, whatever you believe. Those who judge pedophilia to be unacceptable are right, and those who judge pedophilia to be acceptable are wrong. And racism is unacceptable, whatever you believe. Those who judge racism to be unacceptable are right, and those who judge racism to be acceptable are wrong.

What about criticizing people for being white, as in "white privilege"? — Harry Hindu

Talk of "white privilege" isn't criticizing people for being white. When people talk about white privilege they are making the claim that white people have certain advantages over non-white people because of racism against non-white people.

You seem to think that your judgements of what is acceptable, is more acceptable than what others judge as acceptable. — Harry Hindu

No, I think that my judgement of what is acceptable is correct. I believe that I am correct in judging pedophilia, racism, sexism, and homophobia to be unacceptable, and that anyone who judges any of these things to be acceptable is wrong, because the objective fact of the matter is that these things are unacceptable.

Closing whine thread. — Baden

Puhh-leeez. This is so typical of the kind of stuff I see on FB and Twitter.

And if Trump had won, and you started a thread complaining about how he won illegally, it wouldn't have been a "whine" thread, but a "patriotic call for action," right?

This is what I'm taking about how one side defines the argument in such a way that makes the other side appear to be the "whiners", "racists" and "bigots". Name-calling isn't acceptable, period, especially on a philosophy forum that is seriously about philosophy.

Looking back from that high energy sustainable future, yes - I think people would regret destroying history for what it symbolises today. I think providing the world with limitless clean energy from magma, securing the future for humankind makes good on the civilisation we fought to build, and that sanitising history removes a warning label from what might come again if we don't keep building. — counterpunch

Eh, those statues have sat there being a celebration of history for a long time, removing them is a symbolic act to acknowledge the ongoing relevance of the warning they represent.

In terms of "big picture" stuff we probably agree; if the world had limitless clean energy that everyone could access, our greatest existential threats would be solved. Getting there will be messy political business though, and I'd guess we'd disagree on what kind of politics is required to get there. Our lords and masters have a habit of doing whatever they can to limit our access to that future, since they're invested in keeping the material conditions in place that cause those existential threats and stifle us from doing anything about it.

Talk of "white privilege" isn't criticizing people for being white. When people talk about white privilege they are making the claim that white people have certain advantages over non-white people because of racism against non-white people. — Michael

Who is being racist against non-white people?

Who is being racist against non-white people? — Harry Hindu

Lots of people. The Ku Klux Klan, for example.

No, I think that my judgement of what is acceptable is correct. I believe that I am correct in judging pedophilia, racism, sexism, and homophobia to be unacceptable, and that anyone who judges any of these things to be acceptable is wrong, because the objective fact of the matter is that these things are unacceptable. — Michael

This is all based on the faulty idea that morality is objective.

My point all along is that you have simply redefined questioning a faulty premise that you have assumed to be true, to fall within the category of "racism". Its no different than a religious fundamentalist accusing me if being a devil-worshipper when I question their assertions about the existence of their God.

Lots of people. The Ku Klux Klan, for example. — Michael

Lol. The KKK is not lots of people, nor are all whites part of the KKK. Guilt by association is another logical fallacy. So much for engaging in philosophy on this "philosoohy" forum.

My point all along is that you have simply redefined questioning a faulty premise that you have assumed to be true, to fall within the category of "racism". — Harry Hindu

I don't know what you mean by this. I was just responding to your question "You think its ok to verbally abuse others you disagree with, but racism is a big, "No-No"? Whats the fucking difference?"

The difference, as I said, is that 1) it's acceptable to be black, and so 2) unacceptable to criticize people for being black. It then follows from this that 3) racism is unacceptable, and so 4) it's acceptable for people to be criticized for being a racist.

Which of these four claims do you disagree with?

Lol. The KKK is not lots of people, nor are all whites part of the KKK. Guilt by association us another logical fallacy. So much for engaging in philosophy on this "philosoohy" forum. — Harry Hindu

I didn't say that only the KKK are racist or that all white people are part of the KKK, and nowhere did I suggest any guilt by association.

Then you didn't properly answer my question.

Again, my point is that calling someone the R-word is just as unacceptable as calling someone the N-word because they are both examples of ad hominems, and ad hominems are logical fallacies that simply don't move the discussion anywhere. On a philosophy forum worth its salt, they should be kept at a minimum, but you seem to think that its acceptable for some to do it and not others. So much for your ideas of equality and eliminating privileges. :roll:

Again, my point is that calling someone the R-word is just as unacceptable as calling someone the N-word because they are both examples of ad hominems, and ad hominems are logical fallacies that simply don't move the discussion anywhere. — Harry Hindu

If someone is a racist then it's acceptable to call them a racist and criticize them for being a racist. If someone is black then it's not acceptable to call them a nigger and criticize them for being black.

and that anyone who judges any of these things to be acceptable is wrong, because the objective fact of the matter is that these things are unacceptable. — Michael

What makes moral claims objective? While I agree that genocide is bad, I don't see what sort of fact about the world justifies that being an objectively real judgement. The universe doesn't seem to care, and human societies have had different moral codes with philosophers defending competing ethical systems. What makes any of our moral judgements objective?

Is there a kind of internal moral realism? Is it real in the way money and economics are real? We have some means of agreeing on what values to assign to things or actions?

Again, my point is that calling someone the R-word is just as unacceptable as calling someone the N-word because they are both examples of ad hominems, — Harry Hindu

Oh FFS, "racist" is not a pejorative term against racists. Likening it to the N-word is beyond stupid.

Oh FFS, "racist" is not a pejorative term against racists — Kenosha Kid

Exactly, simply because something has a negative connotation doesn't make it a pejorative. You can have adjectives that are both pejoratives and negatively connote and that are not pejoratives yet still negatively connote. Calling a person a "rat" is a pejorative, calling a rat a "rat" isn't, it's neutrally descriptive. Calling a black person a "nigger" is a pejorative, calling a racist, a "racist" is neutrally descriptive. Easy way to know is if the language is publically acceptable: can you read it in respectable newspapers, and hear it spoken by your elected leaders without objection. In the case of "racist", the answer is, obviously, yes. In the case of "nigger", the answer is, obviously, no. Of course, the right just adores to obfuscate and equivocate concerning language. It's often their only door to justification for their opinions.

Australia is exporting 350 million tonnes of coal to Asia every year - while bushfires rage out of control, and the Brazilian rainforest, and Russian arctic tundra are also ablaze - so patting ourselves on the back because we went without burning coal for a few hours, at night, in summer, is a feel good media puff piece. So are electric vehicles.

Transforming automotive technology simply isn't practical - at this stage. First, it places a very large demand on the national grid at a time when we're turning to technologies that produce less power. I would aim to produce massive amounts of clean energy from the heat energy of the earth first, and distribute that energy as hydrogen fuel - that can then be used in cars...and power stations, producing electricity for the national grid. There are not enough charging points for electric vehicles - about 30,000 installed, whereas, the UK has 30 million cars. Installing all that infrastructure would be an enormous task, and come at a huge cost.

Batteries are not good - they have huge drawbacks. They use a lot of toxic metals that have to be mined, and disposed of - but that's some other countries problem, right? Wrong. In reality, the earth is a single planetary environment, and this is a global problem.

If this were about sustainability, at the very least - they would make batteries interchangable, such that, they would be charged at the filling station, and you pull in, switch out the battery, and off you go. Instead, they have built in batteries.- such that, the car has to sit idle for 12-24 hours to charge, and then goes 250 miles max. You can fast charge the car - but then, you damage the battery, and after three years or so, it won't hold a charge. And you have to scrap the battery and the car.

A systematic approach suggest, first, sourcing massive amounts of clean energy. Because that will cushion the impact of any subsequent transformations - not least by affording petroleum producing countries time to diversify their economies. Distributing that energy as hydrogen fuel suggests HICE hydrogen internal combustion engines, or hydrogen fuel cells - both better options than batteries.

That future changes will be required as we change technologies is not a coherent argument against changing technologies, especially when the current technology is even less tenable.

In terms of "big picture" stuff we probably agree; if the world had limitless clean energy that everyone could access, our greatest existential threats would be solved. — fdrake

And when we get fusion reactors to be so efficient that they can compete perfectly against other energy sources, I am certain that there will many of those that are critical of the new technology, distrusting the "science" and being fearful about it's effects. Perhaps that the fusion reactor will explode as a hydrogen bomb. Heck, at least it will cause cancer or something!

(Besides, think about the bureaucracy and the red tape with all these countries involved:)

The left wing approach to sustainability is wrong. Capitalism isn't the fundamental problem. The problem is our mistaken relationship to science; in that we disregard it as an understanding of reality, using science for ideological ends. In that context, capitalism without science based regulation is extremely destructive, but it's not the cause. Further, the left's have less-pay more, carbon tax this, stop that, eat grass and cycle to work approach is no solution.

Not only would it imply authoritarian government to impose poverty on the masses for the left wing approach to take effect - (and in that context, the repeated failures of communism to plan a successful economy might be construed as a virtue) only, even more fundamentally, poor people breed more. It's well noted that improved living standards reduce fertility. So reducing living standards would see a population explosion, and ever less resources eeked out between ever more people. That's not a sustainable future - it's some dystopian mash up between 1984 and The Hunger Games!

The answer lies with a very basic tenet of capitalist ideology, from Hardin's Tragedy of the Commons. As a justification of private property, Hardin shows that "any freely available resource will be over-exploited." His argument concerned common grazing land, and how everyone with access - acting in their rational self interest, would add another cow, and another, and a few sheep and some goats - until the land was exhausted, and the resource destroyed. The earth is a big ball of molten rock - have at it! Exploit it to the maximum degree!

Producing limitless amounts of clean energy from magma to support continued capitalist growth - we can have a sustainable future with high living standards, and population should level off at around 10-12bn by the year 2100 - according the the mid range UN Population Division projections. Undermine improved living standards by reducing demand, and population will not level out. We have to press on - we have no choice. But we need more energy - not less. That's the key. It's the only way to balance the equation.

Eh, those statues have sat there being a celebration of history for a long time, removing them is a symbolic act to acknowledge the ongoing relevance of the warning they represent. — fdrake

How does something that isn't there, say anything? You look at that statue of Colston, for example - and are offended by it. It means something different to you now than it meant to those who erected it, and it will mean something different again to subsequent generations. Who the giddy fuck are you to insist your current opinion, not only trumps that of previous generations, but removes it from the consideration of all subsequent generations?

What do you see? You see an anti western target for your politically correct virtue signalling - a myopic, self righteous view based on the lie that slavery was a particular cruelty invented and practiced by white people, against black people - because they're black. You think slavery was racism. But white people didn't go out and capture black people and force them into slavery. They bought slaves from black people; trading Western manufactured goods - cloth and metal tools for slaves, then trading salves for sugar and spices in the Americas, and then back to Europe to sell the sugar and spices.

Slavery existed since the dawn of time - Ancient Egypt, Ancient Rome, Ancient Greece - they all had slaves. The Arab slave trade from Africa was seven centuries old before Europeans got involved. And a few centuries later, for the first time ever in the entire history of humankind, there arose a civilisation that determined to put an end to slavery. That's what I see when I look at that statue of Colston. I see a man from an age before philosophies on the rights of man and capitalist economics based on individual liberty - allowed for Abolition. You despise the very civilisation that ended slavery - and if you have your anti western way, you would again, make slaves of us all - and call it Communism.

I totally agree with your argument on the importance of energy. That is crucial. The most abhorrent and lunatic ideas are those that assume that there are too many people and the solution we have to go back to some time that the person in his or her fantasies thinks is optimal.

Also I agree with that the solution is higher living standards, as that has and will curb population growth. Also more wealthy people, not those on the brink of starvation, will happily preserve nature. Even if the poorest do understand what is happening, what can you do if you haven't anything else and the immediate problem is how to feed your family today and tomorrow? What has happened now in Asia, would be far more than welcome to happen in Africa.

If I made a coherent argument, you wouldn't read it. You'd ignore everything I said, and toss off some thoughtless one liner within two minuets of my post.

But we need more energy - not less. That's the key. — counterpunch

The good news here is that according to somebody a lot smarter than us, E=mc2. This means that all matter is energy [and a hell of a lot of energy], so this will not be a big problem moving forward. It's simply a matter of figuring it out.

I don't think nuclear fusion can work in earth gravity. I think the huge gravity of the sun creates an immense density of hydrogen plasma - and this is necessary to overcome the Pauli exclusion principle. They can make fusion happen, but I doubt they will ever sustain a reaction in earth gravity under any pressure they can manufacture.

Nuclear fission works, but it's got a lot of drawbacks - not least, sourcing yellow cake Uranium in a world destabilized by a concerted move away from fossil fuels. It takes massive amounts of steel and concrete to build a nuclear power station - usually produced with fossil fuels. It produces radioactive waste materials that have to be stored safely, forever. Then, there's decommissioning a nuclear power station. All that concrete and steel - now low level radioactive, has to be dug up and disposed of.

It may seem like a bargain if you ignore all the drawbacks, and focus exclusively on the fact fission produces a lot of energy without producing carbon, but it's false accounting. I have a better idea. The earth is a big ball of molten rock.

I don't think nuclear fusion can work in earth gravity. — counterpunch

I am not suggesting that fusion is the answer, only that energy is the least of our concerns. Put enough resources to work here, and solutions will be found.

I do agree with you that capitalism is not only not the problem, it's the only game in town, as socialism is simply a re-distribution scheme and communism, a pipe-dream.

It's just a matter of rooting out the corruption which has pretty much paralyzed all systems.

I don't think nuclear fusion can work in earth gravity. — counterpunch

?

You mean H-bombs don't work or what? I assume you mean something else. Nuclear fusion can be done...it just typically uses more energy that it creates, if I have any idea about physics (which might not be so).

Jackson first achieved fusion when he was 12, just hours before he turned 13 on Jan. 19, 2018. His achievement was affirmed by representatives of the Open Source Fusor Research Consortium on Feb. 2

Warning: this is a leftist forum and you will be attacked unceasingly if you disagree with them.

Edit: correction, the forum is dominated by leftists. — Brett

It isn't possible to usefully assess the existence of "leftists" and their worth without defining what they are, which in turn requires that you define what "rightists" are (or whatever those who stand in opposition to leftists are called).

For my part, I'm not sure that the right wing, or conservatism, has any champions or supporters of note here in God's Favorite Country or elsewhere as far as I know, who demand respect as thinkers. Conservatism as I understand once did. It isn't necessary to look as far back as Burke (who, sadly, embarrassed himself so extensively by his comments on the death of Marie-Antoinette that he nearly made himself seem pathetic). Not all that long ago, ii could boast of people like Russell Kirk and Bill Buckley, who were at least capable of defending or promoting it as reasonable in certain respects.

But now? It isn't possible to listen to members of the right wing media or its pundits without marveling at their frantic, self-righteous display of militant ignorance. Conservative politicians seem dull, mendacious, venal and craven. [In truth, I don't care for pundits or politicians of any kind] Are there any conservative or right wing thinkers or intellectuals anymore? Has our grotesque president, his followers and his enablers managed to snuff them out or driven them into silent exile?

Conservatism as I understand it was admirable in its emphasis on civil liberties, less government control where unharmful speech, though and conduct are concerned, a respect for traditions--perhaps I understood it to be more like Classical Liberalism than it was in fact. In any case, there was a time when I valued these views; I still do, though not as I once did. But now it seems a repository for bigotry, jingoism, nationalism and is anti-science and anti-reason.

I've encountered the idea of post material values before - that is, the idea that the West can afford to care about the environment, but you make a good and sympathetic argument of it. What choice do they have? I've done a lot of different jobs in my lifetime, and the best employers want to do things well. The idea that capitalism is necessarily a destructive force, I think is false. It's a basic truism of physics, that in an entropic universe - maintaining a particular state requires the expenditure of energy. If energy is a scarce, expensive factor of production - it limits what land and what resources are worth developing, and what can be done to mitigate the consequences of production. It's essentially the same argument: what choice do they have? Limitless clean energy will give us the choice.

If I made a coherent argument, you wouldn't read it. You'd ignore everything I said, and toss off some thoughtless one liner within two minuets of my post. — counterpunch

I took that on board and waited two hours so as to give you a more considered response, which is this: Pretty big if.