Originally Posted by jpatrick

I've never heard of this guy before, but I have to ask, does he drive a petroleum powered and built automobile, and use the coal and oil powered and built internet and electrical grid, etc., all of which were financed and built by bankers and rich businessmen?

Who cares? That whole line of argument is fallacious for a couple of reasons. First, Jones could be the world's biggest hypocrite and still be right. (That's more or less true of Al Gore.) Second, expecting people to unilaterally undergo a lifestyle change that our infrastructure doesn't support is unrealistic and unreasonable. Some things must be done collectively and cannot be done individually until the collective steps are taken first. This is something I think few Xers grasp, probably because they would prefer to believe in self-sufficiency. But preferences or no, self-sufficiency is not real.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Originally Posted by jpatrick
I've never heard of this guy before, but I have to ask, does he drive a petroleum powered and built automobile, and use the coal and oil powered and built internet and electrical grid, etc., all of which were financed and built by bankers and rich businessmen?

Who cares? That whole line of argument is fallacious for a couple of reasons. First, Jones could be the world's biggest hypocrite and still be right. (That's more or less true of Al Gore.) Second, expecting people to unilaterally undergo a lifestyle change that our infrastructure doesn't support is unrealistic and unreasonable. Some things must be done collectively and cannot be done individually until the collective steps are taken first. This is something I think few Xers grasp, probably because they would prefer to believe in self-sufficiency. But preferences or no, self-sufficiency is not real.

Well, I wasn't really presenting an argument for something, just trying to imply the guy might be out for $ or his own glory. Now your comment on doing something collectively is something I agree with, and the powerful elite will drive whatever that collective action turns out to be, e.g. biodiesel from algae becoming the dominant automobile engine & fuel. I like it when people live a lifestyle that resembles their political greenishness (?), like not buying new gadgets and cars so often.

Originally Posted by jpatrick

I've never heard of this guy before...

-Van Jones is an old line Communist who realized that attacking the free market didn't work (since it's the greatest engine of prosperity for everyone there is), and switched to environmentalism. Look him up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Jones

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Second, expecting people to unilaterally undergo a lifestyle change that our infrastructure doesn't support is unrealistic and unreasonable. Some things must be done collectively and cannot be done individually until the collective steps are taken first. This is something I think few Xers grasp, probably because they would prefer to believe in self-sufficiency. But preferences or no, self-sufficiency is not real.

I'm sorry, there is so much wrong with this kind of thinking that I don't even know where to begin...

History isn't some instantaneous, top-down event that happens when a new law is signed. Momentum has to build up for these kind of political interventions, and radical changes don't happen when there isn't some kind of alternative infrastructure or model available. (I swear, the vision of politics some left-wing boomers have reminds me of a secularized version of rapture. One day, Obama or his successor will reveal their true glory and deliver us from the evil of consumer corporatism, aaaaamen.)

If you and 80%+ of America keep putting your money in to oil and cars, then begging for "Cash 4 Guzzlers" and other auto-industry bailouts, guess what kind of revolution you're actually going to get? Worst of all, you're all still scapegoating the nomads, like they failed to magick your generations' dreams in to reality, on time, and without inconveniencing you.

Hell, I don't even believe global warming is on the top ten list of environment catastrophes, and even I've given up 95% of what is considered a normal driving habit. In two months my next house is going to be in biking distance of everything.

I know that personal responsibility doesn't matter in your world, though, so good luck with your political rapture or insurgency or whatever. I heard hypocrisy is a great way to rally the troops - that is why Al Gore is so popular, after all...

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-Van Jones is an old line Communist who realized that attacking the free market didn't work (since it's the greatest engine of prosperity for everyone there is), and switched to environmentalism. Look him up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Jones

Ok, I'm waiting at work for various things and decided to read about him, and you know, he doesn't sound that bad, and is actually pushing for the common good with some of his activism. We can question his membership with that STORM group or his campaign against California Proposition 21 (increased punishment for gangsters, adult trials for juveniles 14 or older charged with murder), and if I assume he supports abortion rights like other solid liberals of today, then he's probably toast anyway (destined for Hell).

Did you read my link?
World's Oceans in Shocking Decline

Originally Posted by jpatrick

...you know, he doesn't sound that bad, and is actually pushing for the common good with some of his activism. We can question his membership with that STORM group...

...a guy who would belong to a Communist group is evil. A guy who would join a Communist group after the Fall of the USSR is delusional.


Again, being an Environazi is just a way for him to continue the anti-capitalist battle.

Originally Posted by jpatrick

...Did you read my link?
World's Oceans in Shocking Decline

-I'll take it with the usual grain of salt. I think they were claiming that "if nothing is done" that the Greenland ice cap would have already melted.

BTW, not so bad if you live in Greenland...

I'm reading a book right now called The Great Disruption, and according to the author Paul Gildas very little will happen with regards to creating a sustainable society until a crisis, a "climatic Pearl Harbor" or "Nazi invasion of Poland" that bursts the dam of denial and then people and governments will suddenly shift into a full-blown WW2-style mobilization of society. He compares the current global warming denial with the people that appeased Hitler and were in denial about the threat Hitler was.

Interestingly, his hypothesized timeline of the "Great Disruption" sounds very much like the consensus here on how 4Ts play themselves out. Gildas has 2008 as the start of the Crisis and predicts that the denial dam will burst around 2018, followed by the massive war-like mobilization he predicts. According to him there will be intensive government intervention in the economy similar to that of WW2 and that it will be out of necessity, opposition will simply be shoved aside.

Originally Posted by Odin

I'm reading a book right now called The Great Disruption, and according to the author Paul Gildas very little will happen with regards to creating a sustainable society until a crisis, a "climatic Pearl Harbor" or "Nazi invasion of Poland" that bursts the dam of denial and then people and governments will suddenly shift into a full-blown WW2-style mobilization of society. He compares the current global warming denial with the people that appeased Hitler and were in denial about the threat Hitler was.

Sounds all too plausible to me.

Originally Posted by The Rani

What's the name for the thingy where whoever invokes Hitler automatically concedes the argument?

That's not what Godwin's Law means. Godwin's Law says the longer a message board discussion goes one the chance of a reference to Hitler or the Nazis approaches 100%, it says nothing about weather the reference is correct or not.

But you knew that and were just trying to derail the discussion away from the topic.

LONDON (March 5) -- Climate scientists have hit back at skeptics with the publication of a new paper that says the case for man-made global warming is now "stronger than ever."

An international team of scientists led by Britain's Met Office -- the country's national weather service -- has spent the past year reviewing 110 studies published since 2007 that tracked changes in the earth's climate. Their paper, published in the journal Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, concluded that the possibility the world is warming because of natural variations in climate (such as increased volcanic or solar activity) is "increasingly remote." Instead, they firmly pin the blame on man's burning of fossil fuels.

"The science reveals a consistent picture of global change that clearly bears the fingerprint of man-made greenhouse gas emissions," said Peter Stott, head of climate monitoring at the Met Office Hadley Centre for climate research. "Our climate is changing now, and it's very likely human activity is to blame."

more at
http://www.aolnews.com/2010/03/05/ev...rows-stronger/

President George W Bush, the environmentalist

A little hyperbole perhaps

With the designation of the world's largest marine reserve in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands in 2006 and now these three other sites, George W. Bush has done more to protect unique areas of the world's oceans than any other person in history

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/...ine_01-06.html


Perhaps President Obama will continue the trend of Boomer environmentalism that started with President Clinton. When we finally get our first Gen X president we'll see something more drastic and practical.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/ene...d-environment/

Originally Posted by jpatrick

President George W Bush, the environmentalist

A little hyperbole perhaps

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/...ine_01-06.html


http://www.eagleworldnews.com/2009/0...ine-sanctuary/

Perhaps President Obama will continue the trend of Boomer environmentalism that started with President Clinton. When we finally get our first Gen X president we'll see something more drastic and practical.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/ene...d-environment/

Do you mean something like "Earth first! We'll strip-mine the other planets later." ?

Originally Posted by jpatrick

President George W Bush, the environmentalist

A little hyperbole perhaps

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/...ine_01-06.html


Perhaps President Obama will continue the trend of Boomer environmentalism that started with President Clinton. When we finally get our first Gen X president we'll see something more drastic and practical.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/ene...d-environment/

The author of the book I mentioned above is a Australian Gen-Xer and he constantly repeats in his book that the Boomer-style ideological finger-pointing and "should" are irrelevant and that physical reality will force a practical and ruthless response. His book has a very Xer "do what is necessary, damn all the niceties" attitude.

Originally Posted by Odin

The author of the book I mentioned above is a Australian Gen-Xer and he constantly repeats in his book that the Boomer-style ideological finger-pointing and "should" are irrelevant and that physical reality will force a practical and ruthless response. His book has a very Xer "do what is necessary, damn all the niceties" attitude.

So far as the 4T is concerned, Boomers are going to be useless. If they have anything worthwhile to offer, it will be in cultural and spiritual endeavors.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

I'm sorry, there is so much wrong with this kind of thinking that I don't even know where to begin...

Understanding it might be a good place to start.

History isn't some instantaneous, top-down event that happens when a new law is signed.

Absolutely irrelevant to anything that was said.

Momentum has to build up for these kind of political interventions, and radical changes don't happen when there isn't some kind of alternative infrastructure or model available.

Absolutely irrelevant to anything that was said.

(I swear, the vision of politics some left-wing boomers have reminds me of a secularized version of rapture. One day, Obama or his successor will reveal their true glory and deliver us from the evil of consumer corporatism, aaaaamen.)

Absolutely irrelevant to anything that was said.

If you and 80%+ of America keep putting your money in to oil and cars, then begging for "Cash 4 Guzzlers" and other auto-industry bailouts, guess what kind of revolution you're actually going to get? Worst of all, you're all still scapegoating the nomads, like they failed to magick your generations' dreams in to reality, on time, and without inconveniencing you.

Absolutely irrelevant to anything that was said, except for the reference to nomads, and the specifics even of that are equally irrelevant.

Hell, I don't even believe global warming is on the top ten list of environment catastrophes, and even I've given up 95% of what is considered a normal driving habit. In two months my next house is going to be in biking distance of everything.

Absolutely irrelevant to anything that was said.

I know that personal responsibility doesn't matter in your world, though, so good luck with your political rapture or insurgency or whatever. I heard hypocrisy is a great way to rally the troops - that is why Al Gore is so popular, after all...

Absolutely irrelevant to anything that was said.

Like I said, understanding might be a good place to start.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Understanding it might be a good place to start.

Absolutely irrelevant to anything that was said..

Brian, sometimes you talk like a debate competition judge.

You said:

Some things must be done collectively and cannot be done individually until the collective steps are taken first.

Indie then responded:

History isn't some instantaneous, top-down event that happens when a new law is signed. Momentum has to build up for these kind of political interventions, and radical changes don't happen when there isn't some kind of alternative infrastructure or model available.

In other words, Indie thinks individual action is valuable and necessary no matter the stage that the collective may have arrived at.

Seems like a reasonable and relevant response to me.

James50

No, it isn't. All you've demonstrated is that you don't understand what I said, either.

EDIT: It isn't relevant because nothing I said contradicts anything in the material you quoted. I am not saying there is no place for individual action, merely that that is not sufficient, that there is a place -- a crucial place -- for collective action as well, and that creating the infrastructure and technology is not something any one person can be held responsible for. He spoke about his next home being within bike range of everything; well, I don't drive a car at all, but I don't consider that a solution. Not everyone can do that. Particularly, not everyone can do it with our public transportation system in the shape it's in. We must take action collectively. The government must take action. We must make it as easy as possible for most people to do the right thing -- otherwise, most people won't. In fact, some people can't.

The failure to see this is the great flaw of Gen-X, and why we need the Millennials, who see it much more clearly than either of their two generational predecessors.

Tim wrote:

So far as the 4T is concerned, Boomers are going to be useless. If they have anything worthwhile to offer, it will be in cultural and spiritual endeavors.

That would deviate from the generational pattern. Boomers will provide the leadership. In the 4T it will just be a different group of them that came forward in the 3T, with a more action-oriented attitude. They will have Gen Xers to support them and help carry out the plans in a practical and decisive way, and Millennials to provide the activist muscle and networking/institutional skills.

At least, that's how it will work, if and when our 4T is going well, and/or has much chance to have a positive outcome.

Boomers in the 4T will continue to contemplate their navels and create a new spiritual culture. That is part of who Boomers are. Boomers will also exert the political and economic leadership that their spiritual abilities and idealism enable them to provide. That's the prophet profile. Boomers need to live up to it now.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

No, it isn't. All you've demonstrated is that you don't understand what I said, either.

EDIT: It isn't relevant because nothing I said contradicts anything in the material you quoted. I am not saying there is no place for individual action, merely that that is not sufficient, that there is a place -- a crucial place -- for collective action as well, and that creating the infrastructure and technology is not something any one person can be held responsible for. He spoke about his next home being within bike range of everything; well, I don't drive a car at all, but I don't consider that a solution. Not everyone can do that. Particularly, not everyone can do it with our public transportation system in the shape it's in. We must take action collectively. The government must take action. We must make it as easy as possible for most people to do the right thing -- otherwise, most people won't. In fact, some people can't.

The failure to see this is the great flaw of Gen-X, and why we need the Millennials, who see it much more clearly than either of their two generational predecessors.

The power of the state is going to be essential to dealing with the climate crisis. If the book I mentioned is correct there will be WW2-style direct intervention in the economy.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

No, it isn't. All you've demonstrated is that you don't understand what I said, either.

I am only reacting to what you said: "Some things must be done collectively and cannot be done individually until the collective steps are taken first. "

The operative words are "cannot be done individually". Indie worries that becomes an excuse to do nothing. There are many things we can do individually and he is encouraging us to do those things. That is not mutually exclusive from doing things collectively. Your phrase "some things" is non-specific. He was calling you on the non-specific nature of the sentence's subject. He wants to focus on what individuals can do. I think with the idea that as more individuals do things, the collective will be awakened and spurred to action.

I am surprised you want to keep talking about what is irrelevant. This idea of bottom's up change is exactly what you have been talking about for some time.

James50

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Tim wrote:



That would deviate from the generational pattern. Boomers will provide the leadership. In the 4T it will just be a different group of them that came forward in the 3T, with a more action-oriented attitude. They will have Gen Xers to support them and help carry out the plans in a practical and decisive way, and Millennials to provide the activist muscle and networking/institutional skills.

At least, that's how it will work, if and when our 4T is going well, and/or has much chance to have a positive outcome.

Boomers in the 4T will continue to contemplate their navels and create a new spiritual culture. That is part of who Boomers are. Boomers will also exert the political and economic leadership that their spiritual abilities and idealism enable them to provide. That's the prophet profile. Boomers need to live up to it now.

The peak of Boomer influence is already over...

Boomers are heading into retirement. You don't lead in old age. At best, you mentor. More often, you're ignored.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

I know that personal responsibility doesn't matter in your world, though, so good luck with your political rapture or insurgency or whatever. I heard hypocrisy is a great way to rally the troops - that is why Al Gore is so popular, after all...

Hyperbolic much there?

Nobody is saying that individuals shouldn't take steps to counter climate change. The thing is that some people are more environmentally aware (or give a shit more) than others. I still see people driving like idiots -- jackrabbit starts, sudden braking, idling unnecessarily at drive-thru windows, emitting fumes from their tailpipes, etc., and it's clear that they don't care about how their actions are affecting their gas mileage or carbon footprint or whatever you want to call it. That's where a collective effort has to come in. That's why we have emissions testing and awareness campaigns to let people know how they can use less gasoline. (And that's why I am so incredibly pissed off at my governor for killing high-speed rail in my state).

I think it's great that you are doing stuff on your own. But for every one of you, John, there are three or four clueless guys out there who think the world is their personal plaything to exploit and abuse.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

I think it's great that you are doing stuff on your own. But for every one of you, John, there are three or four clueless guys out there who think the world is their personal plaything to exploit and abuse.

They're not clueless intentionally, nor are they somehow constitutionally inclined to act as if their actions had no larger consequences. People, with vanishingly few exceptions, just aren't that way.

What we have, however, is a system which acts specifically to keep consequences of actions remote from the people whose choice it is whether or not to take those actions. That is, people are kept unaware -- at least in senses meaningful to decision-making.

Instead of inventing ways to fake a feedback that we imagine will serve to keep people's behavior corresponding to reality, we are much better served by allowing reality's own feedback mechanisms to act. Gasoline is expensive, in reality-terms. People don't tend to waste things that they perceive as expensive to them.
Poisoning other people is expensive, in reality terms. People don't tend to casually do things that they perceive as expensive to them.

For every one Indy, who is inclined to look beyond the obvious and see what is willfully hidden, there are three or four who lack either the inclination, capacity, or history to drive them to do the same. They aren't bad people, nor are they making bad choices. What they are, however, is badly deceived. Stop deceiving them. They're good people.

Which comes first - the bicycle or the bicycle lanes?

James50

Originally Posted by The Rani

You got that right!

The Moral Sense

Actually, this may be more operatonal -

http://blog.semanticfoundry.com/wp-c...mansreason.pdf

Reasoning was not designed to pursue the truth. Reasoning was designed by evolution to help us win arguments. That’s why they call it ‘The Argumentative Theory of Reasoning’

“The evidence reviewed here shows not only that reasoning falls quite short of reliably delivering rational beliefs and rational decisions. It may even be, in a variety of cases, detrimental to rationality. Reasoning can lead to poor outcomes, not because humans are bad at it, but because they systematically strive for arguments that justify their beliefs or their actions. This explains the confirmation bias, motivated reasoning, and reason-based choice, among other things.”

the debate over global warming is nothing but riff with examples of such.