Move the discussion into the realm of serious chat
Verity this is a legitimate topic
Establish that academics have studied it
Now I’m not a scientist or an academic. I won’t be playing one on the interwebs. But here’s a thing… that was just the first linkee google popped up. As @ ziczac mentioned, this is hardly fringe. I haven’t read it. I was hoping maybe us as UnStuckers could go though it together ITT. Yeah… maybe I am an idealistic after all.
Maybe if you go through it first and present some of your takeaways, others will be more likely to do the same. Otherwise it’s a more intellectual version of, “Check out my youtubez!”
I think most may not be inclined to have a particularly detailed and serious talk about climate change right now because nothing is on the table in the US right now so it feels hopeless and there are no current/urgent levers to push on to change that.
We’re trying to fade a dictator who will doom us in that regard just to have a chance to do hopefully enough, albeit late.
Well, maybe in the WestWing post-while-you-walk fictionalized version of UnStuck. Here where we post it’s all about ACism/utopias/wheres-the-plans/outright trolling more than anything else. There can’t be any serious chat until the usual suspects get that all out of their systems.
Yeah, AU does a lot of that. But, of course, China is building and installing more renewables than anyone else. They generate the most wind, the most solar, the most biomass and the most hydro of any country. If people obstruct coal as much as possible and increase the price as much as possible, it’ll speed the transition.
Like I said, I haven’t read it. There is no arcane point that any academic need explain to us. Some people like getting their information that way. Some don’t care to. It’s all good.
But, I feel we’re at the point where someone who didn’t know there was soccer, just suddenly learned that what the foreigners call “football” is a whole different sport than the NFL. Yeah, it’s a whole different game, buddy. No, I’m not going to go read the Wikipedia, and then summarize it for you in my own words, pal.
Anyways, we’ve already explained it to the liberals countless times… life isn’t ordering from a menu, all these demons are intertwined, etc/etc/etc. Or in the words of an obscure labor organizer…
We must see now that the evils of racism, economic exploitation and militarism are all tied together… you can’t really get rid of one without getting rid of the others
OK, I’ll make a “argument” that capitalism is unsustainable. Like… life. Today. Right here.
Let’s see… capitalism itself is in a partial-collapse state. Remember only half of jurisdictions are doing evictions, which is 1/3 pillars of modern capitalism… because of a pandemic. Which last happened ~100 years ago. That’s just one kind of disaster.
And the richest greatest greediest capitalists ever to despoil the earth, have a toxic POTUS BOWL going the could send things over the edge. This happens every 4 years until the end of times.
So to preserve the environment for the proverbial “seven generation view” (140 yrs), at the very least, we’d need to fade 35 coin-flip POTUS BOWLS, 2 coin flip pandemics, and who knows how many other coin-flip disasters.
I’m never upset. Why you peeps carry on so about other peeps interior mental states like that is beyond me. And no, IDC if you read it. There’s nothing magical about any one source. Maybe check out one that @ ziczac posted? Again, the point… a whole week ago… was to see if my fellow UnStuckers wanted to have a serious chat, or wanted to continue on with grab-assing re:ACer utopia/etc.
How you figure? 140/4 = 35 POTUS BOWLS + this pandemic + another pandemic in the next 140 years + one wildcard disaster =38. Check my maths.
Us non-liberals have tried this ITT… and all we got was the usual acer/cold war/where’s the plans/utopia/outright trolling gibberish. Let’s see if anything has changed in the last week…
Yale Environment 360: You’ve spoken about the… idea that climate change and racial injustice share the same roots and have to be addressed together…
Elizabeth Yeampierre: Climate change is the result of… a long, long history that is centered on capitalism… to separate those things is impossible… there is no distinction between one and the other… you can’t treat one part of the problem without the other, because it’s so systemic.
Martin King: We must see now that the evils of racism, economic exploitation and militarism are all tied together… you can’t really get rid of one without getting rid of the others
OK, as requested… I’ve actually read this one ( check!), I’ve excerpted the relevant quotes ( check!), and here’s my take ( check!)…
Sabo: Ms Yeampierre is echoing the words of Mr King 50 years ago. She is echoing the words of Seattle 20 years ago: “Teamsters and Turtles”. She is saying the same thing as the non-liberal UnStuckers of today: “Capitalism and racism are conjoined twins inexorably linked”.
My take is that above is correct. Life is not ordering off a menu. And that trying to solve any one of these problems in isolation is fools mission necessarily doomed to failure. My take is that we are currently on this fools mission IRL, and unless we try something else, and immediately, human life on earth is doomed.
So, this week, which door will us UnStuckers choose to open ???/?
The liberals will finally “groc” what the non-liberals are getting at. No ‘rigorous debate’ breaks out… but at least us UnStuckers aren’t talking past each other anymore.
A ‘rigorous debate’ does indeed break out, where the liberal UnStuckers argue that Ms Yeampierre, Mr King, and the non-liberal UnStuckers got it all wrong -vs- the non-liberal UnStuckers argue that the liberals got it all wrong.
Another week of acism/where’s the proposals/cold war/utopias/outright trolling gibberish.
There’s a serious reason for doing so, of course. One that I’m surprised a infamous Messagista Brigadeer such as yourself is missing. But besides all that… you keep reacting in this lol-tastical manner… so it’s obviously pushing one of your buttons, which makes it worth doing in it’s own right. Just like this Q you’ll lol-tastically avoid…
Hi! My SN is clovis8. IRL I self-identify as a liberal. Here on UnStuck, I prefer to be called ___________ .
I’ve already made clear that I’m referencing the set {pro-capitalists who whine when called conservatives} when I use the label “liberal”. You are a member of that set. Are you claiming you, yourself, are mystical?
It’s an idea, but it’s not proven and I disagree with it. I vehemently disagree that it’s our best shot because I know the level of pushback on it will be so extreme and so broad that if that’s our only chance, we’re already doomed.
Our best shot is massive reform to a system of well-regulated capitalism resembling the Scandinavian model that includes major climate change policy.
It is impossible to prove that either idea would fail, the science all speaks to milestones we need to hit. They can be hit under any system, in theory.
The bolded is an assertion. In the USA, the capitalists who own the businesses and run the government have known for the past ~50 years that their business practices and governmental policies are driving us all towards ecocide. They were driving us towards ecocide before Citizens United and after. They were driving us towards ecocide back when the MW was higher in real dollars and now when it’s relatively lower. They’ve been driving us towards ecocide without UHC, and having UHC will not prevent them from continuing to drive us towards ecocide. So, you’ve proposed 3 policies that have no impact on sustainability.
Every form of “regulated” capitalism that has existed in the USA in our lifetimes has been steering us towards ecocide. We know this because that’s why we have arrived at the place we are: teetering over the cliff with the capitalists still firmly at the helm. This means that a form of regulated capitalism that would be 1. sustainable and 2. avoid ecocide, has never existed in the USA in real life.
We agree that separating capitalists from their power is a necessary condition of preventing/reversing climate change. Capitalism is a system where the capitalists have the power. If you separate them from the power, then you are ending capitalism. Or as ZZ said:
Quick question cuse: are you an actual capitalist? Like do you own capital and derive your income exclusively off of the work of others, or do you actually work for a living? If it’s the former, it’ll be nearly impossible to change your mind regarding capitalism’s sustainability. If it’s the latter, then it truly is confounding to me that someone would go this hard in the paint for a system which empowers the few to destroy the ecology of the many and brought us nearly to the point of no return for the continuation of human life on earth.
We’ve already established that the milestones can not be hit under what you call “unregulated capitalism”. Also, we are missing the milestones under real existing “regulated” capitalism. So, we know that they can’t be hit under either of those two systems.
So, your assertion that they can be hit under any system in theory is not true.
check!), I’ve excerpted the relevant quotes (