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
Just like Hitler did. The result was a polarizing war which led to a relatively unified world order. and the creation of the UN.
The irony of the US playing such an influential role in the defeat of Hitler before creating one of their own.
But I don't accept that the current division is a permanent feature. The process of ending the division will probably be quite ugly.
Sounds like you're saying we need an Adrian Veidt solution.
https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf...
Lancet study shows that the public is open to degrowth policies
I didn't see this post back in December.
Perhaps these studies tell us something about the ability to generate initial public support for the idea of degrowth. But I don't think think they tell us anything about how durable that support would be. Degrowth was presented to respondents in this study in a mostly utopian way that would have made it relatively easy for respondents to imagine that any immediate negative consequences would be borne by "others" or "society at large" (with the latter impact being diffuse and barely noticeable). In fact, if such policies were proposed, I'm sure there would be immediate term pain, even if it was right thing to do for humanity over a 50-100 year time horizon. People would be firehosed with negative media reports. They would be battered with information about how the economy was worse than it was four years ago. They would be battered with reports about the futility of a few nations absorbing the short term pain of degrowth policies if other nations like China were not observing similar policies. They would be told that the U.S. was "falling behind."
Would public support be durable in that scenario even if it would be rallied in the first instance? It is not at all obvious to me that it would be.
I didn't see this post back in December. Perhaps these studies tell us something about the ability to generate initial public support for the idea of degrowth. But I don't think think they tell us anything about how durable that support would be. Degrowth was presented to respondents in this study in a mostly utopian way that would have made it relatively easy for respondent
It seems that a great deal of your posting is entirely related to skepticism of the general public's ability to adapt.
You refrain entirely from commenting on your personal wishes in this matter.
Would you prefer to live in a world where the public was able to cooperate and adapt or not ?
That's how democratic movements begin. It's a coalescing of what people wish for. But it requires that people have the courage to declare what they wish for. Something which you seem to lack.
In the other thread, I gave you several specific examples of my personal preferences.
You seem to represent an allegiance to the status quo.
In this instance, you are avoiding the direct question as to your preference.
Once again, do you prefer a public which is able to adapt and embrace degrowth policies or not ?
Maybe you change your name to "Mr Vague"
You seem to represent an allegiance to the status quo.
In this instance, you are avoiding the direct question as to your preference.
Once again, do you prefer a public which is able to adapt and embrace degrowth policies or not ?
Maybe you change your name to "Mr Vague"
Maybe change your name to "Mr Nutbag"
You seem to represent an allegiance to the status quo.
In this instance, you are avoiding the direct question as to your preference.
Once again, do you prefer a public which is able to adapt and embrace degrowth policies or not ?
Maybe you change your name to "Mr Vague"
Lol you literally said the same exact thing to me right before also asking me with your stern tyrannical voice if I was in or out with your bullshit.
Others don't need to agree with your preferred idiotic "degrowth" policies or else. You're not actually in charge of anyone else.
But again, your policies outside of FDR bits in the first half of your day are complete dogshit and more importantly don't guarantee a better environmental outcome, in fact, you'd very likely be torching the environment because 99%+ of human civilization is going to fight against it with their own industrial capacity if any of it actually happened in practice.
I mean, you'd have your men smoke me on day one, but you've got about another 6.5 Billion to go which would be a hell of a lot of work for your captains to manage which certainly wouldn't be good for emission levels. Which is the #1 issue I remind you.
I moved it here so it doesn't spill over into the climate thread or the Trump thread.
I like you too 72. But it would be nice if you occasionally played a role which was not akin to devil's advocate or class clown. If you would join in and say that it's not ok with you to derive pleasure from the fear and anger of little girls, I would appreciate it. That's what this climate crap all boils down to. Adults not taking care of children. Humanity has become an oxymo
It's not ok to derive pleasure from the fear and anger of little girls.
Besides that, I genuinely appreciate the kind words and maybe we can talk a little more plainly from here on, but you made a comment that I thought was interesting ...
Your clinging to your milk and steak is no different than the slaveholders clinging to the right to own other human beings. Your stance is identical to that of a historical slaveholder and your karma is equivalent. .
Please do not take this as some jab, as I believe this particular country has made some improvements since the 1990s for the lives of its people, but do you notice a similarity with a lot of the things that you say and the DPRK? A lot of what you have posited ... in regard to the collective body and personal desires serving the "environment" or "each citizen will be allotted credits to choose among the available items which will be sufficient for good nutrition" and of course the captains talk and registering folks is definitely from their playbook.
There are others here in this forum who believe that the DPRK are the good guys so don't feel compelled that you need to distance yourself or anything. I honestly just want to have the conversation about the much larger differences between those ideas rather than debating FDR using quotes that don't really align with that comparison. I really just hope we've progressed enough to where we don't have to go back to talking about how great Bernie ****ing Sanders is.
Please do not take this as some jab, as I believe this particular country has made some improvements since the 1990s for the lives of its people, but do you notice a similarity with a lot of the things that you say and the DPRK?
I'm not an expert on the DRPK. It doesn't seem like an appealing place to live nor do I approve of the deification of rulers or a hereditary monarchy.
You look around the world at human societies and it's easy to find flaws wherever you look.
I'm also not perfect. What I suggest is not a utopian fantasy. It is merely a path to survival which allows people the maximum freedom while removing the freedom to significant pollution. It offers people what they need to survive and as robust a set of recreational and creative pathways as that survival path allows. They can still get drunk, smoke weed, watch movies, play sports, and complain about the government. But they won't be able to post climate denial nonsense on X any more and there won't be any more corporate or oligarchic ownership of media.
I honestly believe that what I propose is necessary to avoid the complete collapse of human civilization. A process which would be without precedent in human history in terms of the scale of the brutality and suffering.
I'm not an expert on the DRPK. It doesn't seem like an appealing place to live nor do I approve of the deification of rulers or a hereditary monarchy. You look around the world at human societies and it's easy to find flaws wherever you look. I'm also not perfect. What I suggest is not a utopian fantasy. It is merely a path to survival which allows people the maximum freedom wh
In Nuttopia, is there a democratic process to 'vote the rascals out' if the majority of citizens decide that this New World Order is a big crock?
In Nuttopia, is there a democratic process to 'vote the rascals out' if the majority of citizens decide that this New World Order is a big crock?
There is no system in history which can subdue the majority of the citizens when they are united.
Today the majority is united by selfishness, ignorance and fear. You're a card carrying member. of the majority geezer. Tell me ..... what could stop you?
At some point, people are going to beg for the system I propose because they don't want to die. They won't want their kids to die. In the end, survival is the only priority.
In the movie Deep Impact, human civilization is threatened by a meteor and a small subset of the population is eligible for a lottery in which they get to survive in a fortified underground bunker until the dust settles. No sunlight. No fresh air. No trees. Just living off of stored rations in a big bottle in tight quarters.
People would be desperate to be selected in such a situation.
I propose a situation living on the surface with freedom to roam around. The ability to gaze at stars and build a campfire. The feel of the breeze. Lakes and oceans to swim in. A much greater variety of social and community options. A habitable future for their kids.
And what do the idiots say to that .... they call it authoritarian oppression.
ICE is authoritarian oppression. Netanyahu is an authoritarian oppressor. Musk is an authoritarian oppressor.
I'm a weed smoking hippie. I enjoy the stars and the breeze and the ocean and just vibing with people. I don't need Fritos, Coca-Cola, flights to Paris or Big Macs to be happy and it makes me sad that people cling to those rushes of salt, sugar, fat and social conformity.
There is no system in history which can subdue the majority of the citizens when they are united. Today the majority is united by selfishness, ignorance and fear. You're a card carrying member. of the majority geezer. Tell me ..... what could stop you? At some point, people are going to beg for the system I propose because they don't want to die. They won't want their kids to d
I don't think this response even began to answer my question.
In the movie Deep Impact, human civilization is threatened by a meteor and a small subset of the population is eligible for a lottery in which they get to survive in a fortified underground bunker until the dust settles. No sunlight. No fresh air. No trees. Just living off of stored rations in a big bottle in tight quarters. People would be desperate to be selected in such a si
That might help to explain your delusions. Appreciate your candor.
Make it a great day!
I'm a weed smoking hippie. I enjoy the stars and the breeze and the ocean and just vibing with people. I don't need Fritos, Coca-Cola, flights to Paris or Big Macs to be happy and it makes me sad that people cling to those rushes of salt, sugar, fat and social conformity.
You are merely expressing an all too familiar form of elitism.
Sounds like something a conformist would say.
That a New World Order Draconian Superstate (TM Pending) can result in anything other than more death and destruction and misery and poverty and want than we can possibly imagine. It's a case of the cure being roughly a million times worse than the disease.
The pursuit of truth involves a willingness to put one's ideas before the public and accept criticism.
I welcome the process which involves all of you weighing in.
The fact that no one is disagreeing with the substance of my arguments and their criticism is based entirely on character references provides a form of validation that they don't have an argument with the substance.
People don't like me because I don't do what they want. I don't tell them what they want to hear. I don't tell them that they are good and virtuous people. Dale Carnegie would point to me as the polar opposite of his advice.
We humans largely became domesticated creatures during the agricultural revolution. Removed from the egalitarianism of hunter / gatherer societies and now subservient sheeple in a steep social hierarchy. Marching in unison toward the demise of our "civilization". Unable to summon the basic animal energy to fight back and protect children.
You can call me delusional all you want. But that's just a defensive reflex to uncomfortable truth.
That a New World Order Draconian Superstate (TM Pending) can result in anything other than more death and destruction and misery and poverty and want than we can possibly imagine. It's a case of the cure being roughly a million times worse than the disease.
Go ahead .... explain the cause and effect which supports your theory.
Why would people die in greater numbers than those dictated by our natural lifespan?
Let me acquaint you with the scientific method geezer.
It goes like this ....
Observations ==> Hypothesis ==> Experiment ==> Results ==> Theory
You are introducing a theory that a globally cooperative environmentally centric society with UBI for basic needs would lead to an apocalypse.
A theory is like a penthouse unit in a high-rise building. Observations are like the building foundation.
Which observations support your theory?
Indigenous Americans did quite well for 15,000 - 20,000 years living according to a system similar to that which I propose. Before white Christians invaded and commenced with rapid environmental destruction.
