Nut Nut's Attempt At A Book About Politics & Society
Dear Forum Members,
Over in the poker threads, they have members who blog about their poker experience. I've been wanting
So long as the actions of a particular area remain isolated to that particular area, I wouldn't have a problem with it. As I said earlier, a wise king would delegate decision making down the chain of command.
But the liberty to pollute air and water which is an interconnected global resource has to stop. If we can't restrain ourselves, then we will go extinct.
I guess I have a question for the audience.
Is there any other form of government beyond what I have proposed which has the capability of protecting the environment ?
I guess I have a question for the audience.
Is there any other form of government beyond what I have proposed which has the capability of protecting the environment ?
do you realize liberal capitalist democracies are the only forms of government who ever gave a **** about the environment at all, among all we tried ever?
do you realize liberal capitalist democracies are the only forms of government who ever gave a **** about the environment at all, among all we tried ever?
Africans have been around for several hundred thousand those years. Native Americans did quite well for 15,000 - 20,000 years.
Liberal capitalist democracies just a few hundred. All of the plastic poisoning, PFAS and GHG poisoning have occurred under liberal capitalist democratic rule.
Africans have been around for several hundred thousand those years. Native Americans did quite well for 15,000 - 20,000 years.
This is a bit like saying crocodiles did a great job of not impacting the environment. That's true, but mainly because crocodiles lack the ability to meaningfully impact the environment -- much like humans until very relatively recently.
I guess I have a question for the audience.
Is there any other form of government beyond what I have proposed which has the capability of protecting the environment ?
Your proposal depends on overwhelming public consensus. I think a lot of forms of government with overwhelming public consensus could impose relatively significant measures to protect the environment.
Africans have been around for several hundred thousand those years. Native Americans did quite well for 15,000 - 20,000 years.
Liberal capitalist democracies just a few hundred. All of the plastic poisoning, PFAS and GHG poisoning have occurred under liberal capitalist democratic rule.
Well, they didn't poison the rivers 20,000 thousand years ago because they leaned communism or something but because they there was no people and there was no tech.
But when the tech advances, and fossil fuels and such comes into play, you're going to see massive energy use no matter who uses it.
I think you're a bit purposefully deceptive on honestly comparing China to the US with fossil fuel use (amongst other things) but China is doing very close to the same thing as the US in that regard, not because of their political system, but because they've got their citizens living better lives than before, who are now contributing at a higher per capita rate than before - although still lower than the US, China is closing that gap, because of those reasons.
Look at how China has blossomed in the last half century !!!! They were starving by the tens of millions under Mao and now they are a legit superpower with the greatest manufacturing economy in the history of the planet. People's quality of life has improved and Chinese life expectancy has surpassed the US.
This is where I question your preferences here?
Scandinavian countries have a lower per capita fossil fuel consumption than China. And it looks like they win on air and water pollutants too.
China is also increasing their per capita emissions because of the reasons you posted.
You're environment first over economic idealism, right? Explain why China is preferred of Scandinavia's better per capita emissions numbers with elections
This is a bit like saying crocodiles did a great job of not impacting the environment. That's true, but mainly because crocodiles lack the ability to meaningfully impact the environment -- much like humans until very relatively recently.
Crocodiles have a survival record on the order of 100 million years. That's over 300x that of humans. Crocs and sea turtles are some of the only mega fauna (animals weighing over 50 kilos) to survive the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum 55 million years ago. They did so because they were amphibious. Humans don't have the option of living below the surface. The volume of habitable space available to a crocodile is several orders of magnitude greater than for humans.
They are far superior to humans in the arena of survival. The chances of our matching their accomplishment are tiny.
This is where I question your preferences here?Scandinavian countries have a lower per capita fossil fuel consumption than China. And it looks like they win on air and water pollutants too.China is also increasing their per capita emissions because of the reasons you posted.You're environment first over economic idealism, right? Explain why China is preferred of Scandinavia's
I don't prefer China over Scandinavian models of government.
I used China's success as an example of the success of a dictatorship.
The difference between China and Norway's per capita emissions are not that great. 9.24 tons per year vs 7.86. A lot of that is due to two factors. 1) China's being a global export hub and the fact that emissions are allocated 100% to the country of manufacture / shipping and 0% to the country of consumption. 2) China doesn't have a NATO or EU to hide behind for self-defense like Scandinavian countries do. They have to invest in their own military.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co...
All that said .... China is by far the world's leading implementer of renewable energy and their fossil fuel use peaked this year. They are now adding more renewable energy than their incremental energy demand.
This is where I question your preferences here?Scandinavian countries have a lower per capita fossil fuel consumption than China. And it looks like they win on air and water pollutants too.China is also increasing their per capita emissions because of the reasons you posted.You're environment first over economic idealism, right? Explain why China is preferred of Scandinavia's
I used China's success as an example of the success of a dictatorship.
The difference between China and Norway's per capita emissions are not that great. 9.24 tons per year vs 7.86. A lot of that is due to two factors. 1) China's being a global export hub and the fact that emissions are allocated 100% to the country of manufacture / shipping and 0% to the country of consumption. 2) China doesn't have a NATO or EU to hide behind for self-defense like Scandinavian countries do. They have to invest in their own military.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co...
All that said .... China is by far the world's leading implementer of renewable energy and their fossil fuel use peaked this year. They are now adding more renewable energy than their incremental energy demand.
This is a bit like saying crocodiles did a great job of not impacting the environment. That's true, but mainly because crocodiles lack the ability to meaningfully impact the environment -- much like humans until very relatively recently.
At least you're honest and acknowledge that modern humans have the ability to meaningfully impact the environment.
And we are not refraining from doing just that.
And as people consider the potential forms of government ...... let them consider one which has the following quality
The ability to give up a present day competitive advantage for the sake of the future experience / continuity of the species.
Which form of government would allow for that to quality to be manifest ? Which form of government other than a global entity enables us to transcend tribal rivalries that propel us to ever greater environmental destruction ?
For those who have offered their contributions thus far, I'm grateful.
We may not agree, but it helps me to consider the different ways in which to ultimately tell the story.
Our Achilles Heel as a species seems to be our inability to transcend tribalism. A trait which is wired into our DNA.
Africans have been around for several hundred thousand those years. Native Americans did quite well for 15,000 - 20,000 years.
Liberal capitalist democracies just a few hundred. All of the plastic poisoning, PFAS and GHG poisoning have occurred under liberal capitalist democratic rule.
you are obsessed about plastic. If i was, i would be aghast and terrified that the third world is doing basically all the plastic pollluting and has been doing it in the last 20-30 years.
It's not the first, civilized world filling water with plastics.
It's the people you want to give political power over us (in a world government, asians govern over everyone else).
The third world is doing all the co2 emission increase since 20 years ago, all the plastic pollution. If you guys were credibly anti-pollution, you would be talking about embargoing the third world (or even considering military options)
Crocodiles have a survival record on the order of 100 million years. That's over 300x that of humans. Crocs and sea turtles are some of the only mega fauna (animals weighing over 50 kilos) to survive the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum 55 million years ago. They did so because they were amphibious. Humans don't have the option of living below the surface. The volume of habitab
Sharks beat both.
No the space available to crocodiles isn't several orders of magnitude greater than for humans lol (might be true for sea turtles, if they didn't need to lay eggs on beaches).
I don't prefer China over Scandinavian models of government. I used China's success as an example of the success of a dictatorship. The difference between China and Norway's per capita emissions are not that great. 9.24 tons per year vs 7.86. A lot of that is due to two factors.
Less than 10% of chinese emissions are linked to exports.
It's the people you want to give political power over us (in a world government, asians govern over everyone else).
)
Thank you for being the epitome of a tribalist and illustrating the example of one who has succumbed to Machiavellian divide and conquer. It's all about us vs them with people like you.
I don't consider asians to be "them". I see them as belonging to the same human tribe as me.
History shows us many examples of traits and technologies which transition from advantageous to obsolete.
Tribalism is an ancient and primitive trait. Far preceding the evolution of humans.
Being on the lookout for enemies is part of our DNA. Preparing for conflict is part of our DNA.
Thank you for being the epitome of a tribalist and illustrating the example of one who has succumbed to Machiavellian divide and conquer. It's all about us vs them with people like you.
I don't consider asians to be "them". I see them as belonging to the same human tribe as me.
But you should acknowledge they have measurable, objective different preferences, and that those are even further away from yours than the preferences of liberal capitalist democracies.
Basically the only people worldwide that agree with you are leftists in first world countries. Everyone else worldwide would dismember you in pieces with a glee if you ever attempt to decrease their quality of life violently through environmental regulation.
Many/most asians would gladly torture all your family members as well to avoid other people taking your places ok? that's the real world.
In egypt and elsewhere there are routinely massive riots every time governments attempt to reduce fossil fuel subsidies for poor families.
So in a world where the vast majority of human beings *do not share your preoccupation with the environment at all* (nevermind climate change: they actually don't give a **** in general), where 1/6 of the population considers it normal to **** in the streets in dense urban areas (india), where the concept of managing a fishery is alien (only liberal capitalist democracies manage to protect property rights for fisheries, the only way to avoid overfishing) and so on, your proposal...
is to create an elective worldwide government with a democratically elected king.
If you think people on the right in liberal capitalist democracies are selfish and short-termist, you never even spent one second to understand how the rest of humanity is. It sucks. Objectively.
It's worse than us, objectively. Even and especially for the stuff you claim to care about here. NEvermind women and homosexual rights. If you think Charlie Kirk was somewhat of an extremist , have you ever tried talking to the median pakistani about blacks, women and homosexuals? and you want those people to have an equal-weighted vote in how to organize political power worldwide?
are you ****ing nuts?
But you should acknowledge they have measurable, objective different preferences, and that those are even further away from yours than the preferences of liberal capitalist democracies.
In egypt and elsewhere there are routinely massive riots every time governments attempt to reduce fossil fuel subsidies for poor families.
1) What are the measurable objectively different preferences you are referring to ?
2) If poor Egyptian families were guaranteed the things I had outlined in my new Bill of Rights, do you think they would riot ? People riot when their livelihood is threatened. If we demonstrate that they will be fed and housed, why would they riot ?
So in a world where the vast majority of human beings *do not share your preoccupation with the environment at all*
I grasp that most human beings are not concerned about the environment. It's a luxury situation that allows me to focus my energy there and also I have the mathematical aptitude to grasp the threat. Most people don't have much aptitude for math.
I grasp that most human beings are not concerned about the environment. It's a luxury situation that allows me to focus my energy there and also I have the mathematical aptitude to grasp the threat. Most people don't have much aptitude for math.
*and so why do you want to give the power to decide to people who you now admit won't vote for what you want* as the solution lol.
Your best bet is to push countries that are already doing a lot for "climate change" to do even more, maybe they come up with cheap carbon capture, or even better batteries/renewables, and that can scale worldwide without the need to change lifestyles.
There is no other path to achieve what you ask for
