https://getpocket.com/explore/item/can-civilization-survive-what-s-coming?utm_source=pocket-newtab From the article: "As this IPCC report makes clear, it’s too late to stop climate change. Our world is changing fast, and those changes are only going to accelerate — no matter how rapidly we cut carbon pollution (although cutting carbon pollution can have a big impact on the pace and trajectory of those changes)." and: "What does adaptation mean? In the broadest sense, it means thinking differently about where we live, how we live, what we eat, how we travel. More specifically, it means things like adapting coastal cities to rising seas by rethinking the boundary between land and sea and enacting policies that encourage retreat from low-lying areas, raising taxes to fund infrastructure improvements, reforming flood insurance, changing zoning laws to prevent building in wildfire zones, and perhaps most important, fighting to be sure that the billions of dollars that are sure to flow into climate adaptation projects aren’t focused on protecting the rich. Climate adaptation is already a profound social justice issue, and the division between the saved and the doomed is likely to grow as climate impacts increase."
And from another article: "In 2015, a study in the Journal of Mathematical Biology pointed out that if the world’s oceans kept warming, by 2100 they might become hot enough to “stop oxygen production by phyto-plankton by disrupting the process of photosynthesis.” Given that two-thirds of the Earth’s oxygen comes from phytoplankton, that would “likely result in the mass mortality of animals and humans.”
Ken, I believe you'd enjoy this article about the.reliability or lack of it, of science. https://www.edge.org/conversation/joseph_traub-the-unknown-and-the-unknowable I don't understand much of it as I'm not that conversant with some of the philosophers, scientists and others cited but what I did understand broadened my ideas about what science really is. A quote form the article: What are some of the reasons why a scientific question might be unanswerable? I'll limit myself to just three here. The first is that insufficient data has survived. That can be a problem in ur-linguistics, archaeology, and history. The second is that contingent events, sometimes called frozen accidents, may limit our ability to explain certain phenomena. (On the other hand, as Stephen Jay Gould eloquently argues, historical explanations in science can be as convincing as those arising from general theories.) Finally, resources, such as energy, may simply not be available in our part of the universe to discriminate among contesting theories about the universe.
Why I'm A Green - More Reasons I'm not so vain as to think that anyone thinks my opinions are important. I write this to clarify my own thoughts as much as for any other reason. If anyone has followed some of my comments and debate here, they've hopefully gathered that although I describe myself as left-leaning, I don't ascribe to a uniform progressive agenda, but entertain significant departures from any uniform leftist ideology. For instance: 1) Although I'm a complete supporter of womens' rights, including their sexual freedom and general equality (or even superiority in some things ), I cannot stomach abortion. The progression from the first cell division to birth is a continuum and it's idiotic think you can decide a time when a mass of cells changes into a person. To think you can do so is to try to justify abortion as a needed form of birth control. There are many other forms of birth control which should be available to all women from their initial sexual maturity. Women, even very young women should be taught not to percieve their sex lives as being too spontaneous to ever consciously prevent pregnancy Abortion is just wrong. 2) I agree with Trump on a few things, much to the chagrin of my fellow progressives. I agree we should bring our troops home from their futile missions overseas. I agree that we should not be a final destination for the world's poor, unskilled people. That robs our own less skilled workers of employment and further exacerbates the super rich and super poor divide we already have. We have much potentail influence on the countries feeding us refugees. We could put our efforts into helping alter our neighbors' pollitical and economic state to a more prosperous one and reduce the number of their citizens in desparate straits, willing to relocate so they can be still poor, but less so. 3) I think tariffs on goods manufactured in other countries are absolutely needed to protect our own industry. Total free trade promises to provide us with products at the lowest price and so raise our standard of living. That libertarian dogma sits in isolation, ignoring the fact that it produces a large class of permanently unemployed who are dependent on the state and this very costly. It is simple reason that our overall standard of living has to rise when the vast majority of people are producing instead of living idle, subsidized lives. 4) I think the nation-state is the best environment for a good society. Nation-states may change for the better in a world of other nation-states' influence or their own internal reform or revolution. A corrupt world state may remain so in perpetuity. So, what's left for me to be progressive about? For the most part, I believe in capitalism, competition and the free market. However, I think that all these operating unrestrained lead to an unjust society. Those unable to compete, including the disabled, the unskilled, the less-educated and the less intelligent are left behind. Let's not forget that those people have innocent children. I believe that global warming is very real and represents a threat to the very existence of humankind. It might be too late to solve it. I believe in a government-funded social safety net for those left behind by capitalism, as I described those people above. I believe in severe limits to personal and corporate wealth. Money is power and power is corrupting. I believe neither Trump nor Biden are fit for office. I think both major political parties are corrupt and in thrall to the rich and super-rich. So I go Green, even thoughthey have no chance of winning. In the end it's a moral choice rather than a strategic one. To anyone who has read this far, thank you. I welcome your comments, disagreements or affirmation. In this forum I expect much disagreement and little affirmation. So be it.
Dwight, I agree wholeheartedly on some of the issues you just posted above. As for a Nation-State, I think I'd welcome it for America right now. A one Nation-World on the other hand would invite the worst tyranny ever. As for whether Biden or Trump are fit for office, well I've been through presidents from FDR to the present and haven't thought much of any one of them. Someone has to do it. Teddy Roosevelt was a favorite of mine only I wasn't born that far back. None are infallible. I agree with Trump wanting to drain the swamp. The halls of Congress are fraught with the most insidious and unscrupulous career politicians who love getting rich off their constituents' backs. The worst definition of Capitalism if ever there was. In its purest sense, a capitalist is one who is successful from hard work and ingenuity and has been able to acquire some wealth as a result. When it comes to Global warming, a prime example of it's not being all man made has been this pandemic. Vehicles were few and far between, yet this country along with others is in the throes of a brutal heat wave. More I believe and La Nino or La Nina effect. Yes we can do better, but not by denouncing every move our president makes.
Lois, thanks for your thoughtful reply. I agree there might be some element of natural earth or sun cycles involved in global warming, but whatever the cause, we need to do what we can to insure our own survival. The world is such a mess in so many ways. I'm almost glad I'm old and will be gone before the worst of what's coming gets here. I'm the only one of my siblings who didn't have children with their future to worry about. .I'm glad of it. What a horrible, sad thing to say, huh?
I'm disappointed in my Green party. Jesse makes a lot of sense in this video. He's got an unusual opinion about Bernie Sanders.
Actually the Greens aren't a potential third party - they're a potential second party, since the big two ones are faces of the same pro-war, pro-military party.
This is just the beginning text of the platform, talking about democracy. I challenge anyone to find any 'crazy talk'. Our defense budget has increased out of all proportion to any military threat to the United States, and to our domestic social, economic and environmental needs. The United States government must reduce our defense budget to half of its current size. The 2012 defense budget exceeded $700 billion, and that does not take into account military expenditures not placed under the defense budget. Our nation was born as the first great experiment in modern democracy. We seek to rescue that heritage from the erosion of citizen participation. Moreover, we seek to dissolve the grip of the ideology, intoned by big-money interests for more than twenty years, that government is intrinsically undesirable and destructive of liberty and that elected officials should rightly "starve the beast" by slashing all spending on social program, in the name of freedom. We challenge that tactic by calling on all Americans to think deeply about the meaning of government of the people, by the people, and for the people. In a democracy, individuals come together to form structures of governance that protect and advance the common good. We the citizens are the government, and we the citizens can direct it to fulfill its finest goals and purposes. Our citizens must not permit usurpation of their authority by acts of individuals and government agencies that isolate or insulate government from their oversight and control. We, the People, have a responsibility to participate in self-government through all the means that our Constitution provides. Citizens of a democracy must have the information and ability to determine the actions of their government. Vast concentrations of wealth and power that have occurred in recent years are inherently undemocratic. The deregulation of corporate activity and the decentralization and underfunding of the regulatory structures that remain—accompanied by the centralizing of big money —has been a disaster for our country. The true owners of the public lands, pension funds, and the public airwaves are the American people, who today have little or no control over their pooled assets or their commonwealth. The power of civic action is an antidote to the corporate control of so much of our lawmaking and regulating. The pervasive abuse imposed by corporate power increasingly undermines our democracy, but the Green Party seeks to rekindle the democratic flame. As voting citizens, taxpayers, workers, consumers, and stakeholders, we unite to exercise our rights and, as Thomas Jefferson urged, to counteract the "excesses of the moneyed interests." Toward this end, we consider serious reform of campaign funding to be essential, as well as curbs on the influence of corporations on lawmakers and regulatory agencies. The Green Party considers American democracy to be an ongoing, unfolding project that is dynamic and creative in nature. We are committed to the strengthening of our civil society, including the many mediating institutions at the community level that have always characterized our democracy. We seek to heal the alienation and apathy that has been cultivated in the citizenry by the power brokers of the status quo. Righteous anger about the crippling of our democracy is rising in the land, and the Greens offer constructive alternatives. In addition, we seek to repair the plummeting opinion of the United States in the international community resulting from our arrogant, narcissistic foreign policy of recent years. A growing and grave imbalance between the citizens of this country and the interests that extract power from the citizens is an imminent danger to our security and national and global social stability. We strongly feel that our country should view itself as a member of the community of nations... not above it. The United States could well play a leadership role in that community but only if we become committed to an eco-social vision of peace, national self-determination, and international cooperation. Our goal is to become an important political force in this country, and to present candidates for election at every level of government.
What country is this intended for? I am asking because the United States government is a republic, not a democracy.
Democratic republic, isn't it? Quibling like this is not helpful. I doubt you actually read it through.
I scanned it and, as I often do, I lost interest when I noticed that it referred to the country as a democracy. They'd love it to be a democracy because, in a democracy, the mob rules, and the mob can be controlled by whoever owns the media. It's not just the Green Party. Whenever someone refers to the the US as a democracy, I know that either they have an agenda that includes coaxing people into accepting that we're a democracy, or they don't know what they're talking about. I have discounted more than one Republican for the same reason.
If I discover any Green who denies that this is a republic, I'll bail on them and vote for Trump. I'm confident that won't happen. The 'mob' being a term for the people, I understand you want rule by only by those who consider themselves independent of the people after their election. I don't go along with this. Please read it through, Ken. It's not long. You'll find things you agree with.
Key Takeaways: Republic vs. Democracy Republics and democracies both provide a political system in which citizens are represented by elected officials who are sworn to protect their interests. In a pure democracy, laws are made directly by the voting majority leaving the rights of the minority largely unprotected. In a republic, laws are made by representatives chosen the people and must comply with a constitution that specifically protects the rights of the minority from the will of the majority. The United States, while basically a republic, is best described as a “representative democracy.”