You know me, I'll assign greed over the other words every day.Originally Posted by Eric the Green
McConnell and Boehner know damn well what they want to do.
- Join Date
- Nov 2013
- Location
- Boise
- Posts
- 964
You know me, I'll assign greed over the other words every day.
Here's Bill McKibben's take on the new China-USA "agreement." It's a good statement.
(quote)
Friends,
Last night, just weeks after the largest climate mobilization ever, the world's two biggest polluters -- the United States and China -- announced their most ambitious climate action yet. That is not a coincidence: it's a sign that our pressure is working, and that we need to apply much more.
Here's my take on what the just-announced plan from President Obama and Premier Xi is, and isn't:
1) It is historic. John Kerry was right to use the phrase in his New York Times oped announcing the deal: for the first time a developing nation has agreed to eventually limit its emissions. This is a necessity for advancing international climate negotiations.
2) It isn't binding in any way. In effect President Obama is writing an IOU to be cashed by future presidents and Congresses (and Xi is doing the same for future Politburos). If they take the actions to meet the targets, then it's meaningful, but for now it's a paper promise. And since physics is uninterested in spin, all the hard work lies ahead.
3) It is proof -- if any more was needed -- that renewable energy is ready to go. The Chinese say they'll be using clean sources to get 20% of their energy by 2030 -- which is not just possible, it should be easy. Which they know because they've revolutionized the production of solar energy, driving down the cost of panels by 90% or more in the last decade.
4) It is not remotely enough to keep us out of climate trouble. We've increased the temperature less than a degree and that's been enough to melt enormous quantities of ice, not to mention set the weather on berserk. So this plan to let the increase more than double is folly -- though it is good to see that the two sides have at least agreed not to undermine the 2 degrees Celsius warming target, the one tiny achievement of the 2009 Copenhagen conference fiasco.
5) It is a good way to put pressure on other nations. I've just come back from India, which has worked hard to avoid any targets of any sort. But the lesson from this pact is, actual world leaders at least need to demonstrate they're talking about climate; it makes the lead-up to the global negotiations in Paris next year more interesting.
6) It is a reason projects like Keystone XL and fracking make even less sense than ever. If President Obama is serious about meeting these kinds of targets, then we need serious steps; the surest way to undermine this commitment would be to approve new pipelines or authorize other new fossil fuel developments like fracking. If you pledge sobriety and then buy a keg of beer, people are going to wonder.
7) It is another reminder that it is past time to divest from fossil fuels. The burgeoning divestment movement has been arguing not just on moral grounds, but also making the point that the future will inevitably lead to a downsloping curve for the old energies. This is another warning -- for anyone who looks more than a few quarters out, the writing is on the wall that the fossil fuel era is on its way out.
8) It's not, in any way, a stretch goal. These numbers are easy -- if you were really being cynical, you could say they're trying to carefully manage a slow retreat from fossil fuels instead of really putting carbon on the run. The Germans, for instance, will be moving in on 60% of their energy from clean sources by the mid-2020s, when we'll still be cutting carbon emissions by small increments.
9) It is -- and this is the real key -- a reminder that movements work. President Obama first endorsed the 80 percent by 2050 goal he enshrined in this pact when he was running for president in 2007, a week after 1,400 demonstrations around the nation demanded that goal. This comes seven weeks after by far the largest global climate demonstrations in history, and amidst ongoing unrest in China about the filthy air in its cities.
10) It isn't, in other words, a reason to slack off one bit in the ongoing fight for a livable climate, a fight we must continue at all cost. If we want this to be a start, and not a finish, we've got to build even bigger and more powerful movements that push the successors of these gentlemen to meet what science demands.
Today is an achievement for everyone who's held a banner, signed a petition, and gone to jail -- and a call for many more to join us going forward!
Thank you so much for everything you've done, and for everything you will do next.
Bill
If anything, I think this is what India really wants. They have been resolute in saying that this mess has been entirely the fault of the US, China, and other major emitters, and that they shouldn't be forced to cut at all to correct for what they see as sins that aren't their own. Getting them to agree on commitments on their own would strike me as India's ultimate goal.
As far as the rest goes, I see a lot of emphasis on clean energy. While that is absolutely necessary and probably the biggest wedge (and thus should be pursued), it's not sufficient. McKibben seems to acknowledge this at #4, but maybe not in the way I see it. The truth is that there are tons of GHGs being emitted in sectors not related to energy that also cause problems. This is primarily in the agriculture and industrial sectors, and to a lesser extent the transportation sector as well. It's just another depressing sign on big of a total problem this is, and how pathetically little we've done to solve it thus far.
Does India have huge fossil fuel resources? If not, then it would be an obvious candidate for early adoption of other energy -- especially solar energy. India has excellent scientific and technological communities. I would never expect India to retard its economic growth or the improvement of the standard of living of its people on behalf of some shibboleth relating to energy.
Once the Reactionary Party fully consolidates power in America, expect the energy companies to force heavy consumption (with the collaboration of the political bosses) of fossil fuels in America. Don't be surprised if the Republicans push their own 'cash for clunkers' to encourage Americans to scrap vehicles efficient in their use of fuel for those gas guzzlers.As far as the rest goes, I see a lot of emphasis on clean energy. While that is absolutely necessary and probably the biggest wedge (and thus should be pursued), it's not sufficient. McKibben seems to acknowledge this at #4, but maybe not in the way I see it. The truth is that there are tons of GHGs being emitted in sectors not related to energy that also cause problems. This is primarily in the agriculture and industrial sectors, and to a lesser extent the transportation sector as well. It's just another depressing sign on big of a total problem this is, and how pathetically little we've done to solve it thus far.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."
― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters
More like 'a whopper'.
(BTW, NM is a 'she'.)
Prince
PS:
Yeah, but I really don't enjoy finding-out a bunch of posters here
are really 'full-of-it'(not that I didn't already have some suspicions).
I Am A Child of God/Nature/The Universe
I Think Globally and Act Individually(and possibly, voluntarily join-together with Others)
I Pray for World Peace & I Choose Less-Just Say: "NO!, Thank You."
Yeah. I figured that was it. I was just looking for confirmation myself.
BTW, you explained yourself just fine and ... surprise, surprise ... I agree!
Prince
PS:<chuckle!>
Hey, seeing that I agree with you so often, is there
any chance I can be a 'nihilist moron denialist' too?
I Am A Child of God/Nature/The Universe
I Think Globally and Act Individually(and possibly, voluntarily join-together with Others)
I Pray for World Peace & I Choose Less-Just Say: "NO!, Thank You."
Here is my take on Eric
1. He wants to stop global warming, reduce income inequality, allow same-sex marriage, and a plethora of progressive causes that he sincerely believes in.
2. He believes that the GOP is denying global warming, increasing income inequality, and is against all of the other progressive causes that he believes in.
3. Ergo, Eric believes that the GOP is bad and must be stopped.
It makes sense to me, even if it is more black-and-white than I see things.
I want people to know that peace is possible even in this stupid day and age. Prem Rawat, June 8, 2008
Agreed. I have my own minor quibbles with Eric on how we view the other side, but on the whole we're on the same side of things.
No more Whoppers. Or fishing, either. Gotta save the planet.
Shhhh ....(BTW, NM is a 'she'.)
Nobody ever got to a single truth without talking nonsense fourteen times first.
- Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment
Robert Reich says:
Question: Who’s the largest foreign lease owner in Canada's oil sands region of Alberta, Canada? Answer: Koch Industries, which holds leases on 1.1 million acres -- an area nearly the size of Delaware -- capable of producing tens of thousands of barrels of the region's thick brand of crude oil in the next few years. The Keystone XL pipeline will lower transportation costs for all oil sands producers, bolstering the Koch’s profit margins. Do you think this might explain why Republicans (as well as some Democrats like Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu) are so eager to have the pipeline approved?
(unquote)
I guess it's getting pretty clear who owns America. And statements that Democrats are overly concerned about the Koch Brothers ring pretty hollow.
I just wonder what the Koch Brothers are going to do with all this extra money? I can't imagine. Just amass even more control over us, I surmise. And then pass it all on to someone who will continue their wonderful legacy.
America is going to be the laughing stock of the world for the American mind.
I might want to affect a British accent should I travel.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."
― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters
Neither Eric nor I saw such bleak prospects until the election results came in. I fear that America could become the sort of country whose police agencies could waterboard a student for putting "The United States of America is a plutocratic oligarchy" in a school essay.
The only good that I can see in the GOP is that it represents well people who could never be at home in any other country -- Christian Protestant fundamentalists who would be laughed at if they ever expressed their belief in young-earth creationism. Maybe such people need their own country much as Holocaust survivors from eastern Europe needed Israel soon after World War II. As only a nominal Christian and a rationalist, I would not want any of my children (if I had any) having to learn that the Universe is only 4000 years old and that evolution is a demonic fraud, or that life is to be suffered with approval of one's abusers and exploiters in return for promises of pie-in-the-sky-when-you-die even if those abusers and exploiters never did anything to create Heaven.
Maybe we liberals believe that a country that we used to think compatible with our beliefs is slipping away.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."
― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters
Oh, I thought that they teach that the universe is SIX thousand years old! It started in 4004 BC (not 4000 years ago) according to Bishop Usher, who did a thorough job investigating the only reliable source of information on the subject: The Bible! Let's be accurate in our facts.
But, don't overlook the fact that many Christians do not believe the young earth theories. There are many old earth/old universe Christians .Oh, I thought that they teach that the universe is SIX thousand years old! It started in 4004 BC (not 4000 years ago) according to Bishop Usher, who did a thorough job investigating the only reliable source of information on the subject: The Bible! Let's be accurate in our facts.
Six. Gotta get my chronology correct. But we must remember that the last red letters (words ascribed to Jesus) in Revelation say that He will return soon. OK, 2000 years is far from "soon", the Bible is the Inerrant Word of God, so the time since the composition of Revelation must be trivial. The last 2000 or so years then must not matter -- right?Oh, I thought that they teach that the universe is SIX thousand years old! It started in 4004 BC (not 4000 years ago) according to Bishop Usher, who did a thorough job investigating the only reliable source of information on the subject: The Bible! Let's be accurate in our facts.
Last edited by pbrower2a; 11-15-2014 at 04:36 AM.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."
― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters
Just ask the young-Earth creationists whether they think that anyone who accepts evolution or an Earth in the age of billions of years is a genuine Christian.
The fossil, genetic, radiological dating, and astronomical evidence so strongly indicates the reality of evolution and an age of roughly 4.5 billion years of the Earth, and that the oldest light that we can get is from roughly 13 billion years ago that for young-Earth creationism to be true, then the God who created all things must have also forged evidence to trick rationalists into damning deceit. God as a forger is unattractive to me.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."
― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters
I don't see any basis for a young universe. And there are some in the young earth community who think that anyone who disagrees with them is a heretic.
My point is that is also a large number of Christians who think that we live in an old universe. There is a tendency sometimes to pick the worst examples of whatever group you disagree with and then assume that all in the broader group have the same characteristics as the small group that is wrong.
Last edited by radind; 11-15-2014 at 09:23 AM.
Indeed, many Christians find the Young Earth Creationism an embarrassment. The Catholic Church does.
A few days ago I saw a story in which some Chinese college students were trying to discourage another from converting to Christianity. "If you become a Christian you give up Darwin".
The truth: Charles Darwin was very much a Christian. The other truth: many Christian denominations have no use for a war with science, in part because they don't want people losing their faith over genetics, astronomy, geology, anthropology, archeology, paleontology, or comparative anatomy.
Once Linnaeus established his classification of life into kingdoms, phyla, classes, orders, families, genera, and species, the Biblical account of the formation of life was doomed as an explanation. If I were a theist I would say that the incontrovertible laws of logic, mathematics, physics, and chemistry are God's laws. The universe would be very different if conservation of mass and energy did not exist, 2+2 were whatever was convenient at the time and not rigidly 4, the speed of light were something else, that the first shell of electrons could contain four instead of two electrons, or that the curve of binding energy favored calcium or germanium over iron. Even that beryllium-8 is unstable has huge consequences for main-sequence stars, namely that a sun-sized star can exist long enough to allow intelligent life to form. If I were a preacher I would use that argument for the existence of God.
And now for something utterly ludicrous (the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVHWq0ZGE_Y
In the end, the argument that evolution is wrong becomes a moral consequence: that people who accept evolution allow slavery (never mind that Darwin was a vehement abolitionist), Nazis, Communism, jihad, crime, and perhaps the Cubs being locked out of the World Series for 70 years... and that Original Sin by Adam and Eve turned vegetarian creatures into such brutal monsters as... snakes and domestic cats. A talking snake tempting Adam and Eve? If I were God, I would be more troubled about Adam and Eve lying about the snake than about eating some fruit.
Last edited by pbrower2a; 11-15-2014 at 02:43 PM.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."
― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters
But what is "God"? It is the divine spiritual consciousness within all things, that is guiding it toward unfolding in ways that we can observe working in these amazing and finely-tuned ways.
2000 years ago or more, creationism was the best explanation folks had. I think it was fine for then, and it's a fine basis for esoteric symbolism like the kabballah and other theories of divine emanation; it's just that today we have more information. We have filled out the story and made it more accurate. We still have a ways to go before we see our history and evolution in the best light, however. We are always learning more. Along the way we have forgotten some things too.
The truth lies in between creation and evolution. That is the direction that the inquiry will take in the new age, as religion and science become partners rather than opponents. Creative evolution is happening all the time; a merely objective account, which does not understand and experience the within of things, will always miss what is really going on. So will an account that merely relies on the authority of traditional religious doctrine and myth.
Getting it right does have moral and ethical benefits. If we view things only from the materialist perspective of scientism, which says all knowledge is objective or empirical and there is no other knowledge, then people and other beings are reduced to objects in our way of thinking. That means we treat them like the objects we believe them to be, instead of beings like we know ourselves to be from within. We forget that we are connected to other beings in one great soul.
If we take the dogmatic religious approach, then our minds are not free to understand our world as it really operates, and freedom of inquiry gets lost. Decisions and votes on such subjects as global warming are made on the basis of superstition, conspiracy theory and propaganda instead of facts. Either approach limits our knowledge and our ability to discover the truth.
Partnership between sensitive modern science and mystical religion is necessary in order for us to create a sustainable world, assuming it still is possible in the light of the inevitable consequences (like global warming) of the two false approaches we have taken.
During the Awakening, this new approach of mystical science was discovered and embraced; since then it has been increasingly lost and smothered in the tide of moral majorities and Christian-right culture wars on the one hand, and advancing tech, science and resurgent materialism on the other. Most young people today have no idea what the Awakening is about, and have been swept back into the prevailing two false dogmas. This is not healthy, and in order to advance as a society we need Awakenings to continue and not be ignored and thrown aside.
What it is, is symbolic, rather than trivial. The Bible is a book of wisdom as well as history and errant dogma. Jesus said no-one knows the time of my "return," so always be ready and watch. That points the way toward the truth that Christ consciousness is always there, and the more we focus and develop our consciousness, and watch, the sooner it will come. And it can come to us and to humanity at any time. Jesus was a God-realized being; he knew what we all can know, that we are one with God, and we are each and all children of God. That realization can come at any time, and then we too are the Christ.
That's what the return of Christ and the book of Revelation is really about, from a symbolic mystical point of view. To me it's obvious that it is not a literal prophecy of coming events. The fantastic symbols in Revelation refer to our own mystical path, just as Joseph Campbell said all the other myths of our various world traditions refer to. They are variations of one story.
The tarot major arcana cards present another version of the story, which I have been interested in recently. The story of generations and the four turnings can also be seen this way.
As Bronco already noted, Eric is much more absolute in his beliefs than I am, but we're on the same side.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.
"Absolute" in my low regard for Republicans. I give them a no confidence vote. Sure in my opinion that a strategy for improving the country must start with voting them out. We just need to have the straight scoop on what exactly is holding us back as a country. On issues and beliefs themselves, in general I'm not necessarily so absolute, or further left than other liberals here, etc.
There are many otherwise sensible Xtians who are in the bag for the young earth nonsense, and other equally bizarre fundamentalist nonsense. I work with twin brothers who are about my age (just for reference). They graduated valedictorian and salutatorian from a very well respected engineering school, so they aren't opposed to science, unless it conflicts with their extremely fundamentalist Xtian beliefs. They can cite every young earth dogma and faux fact. They are very smart, but very dumb.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.
The Usual Nitpick
Values trump facts. This is human nature. It is far too easy for many with non-science primary values to find reasons to discredit experimental evidence and observation of nature. It is much harder -- nigh on impossible -- to re-evaluate one's values from scratch. The mind seems to have natural defenses that allow individual humans to avoid perceiving and acting upon such cognitive dissonance. Anything that would force re-evaluation of values becomes irrelevant, subject to doubt or otherwise dubious.
I don't think this is unique to fundamentalists. As someone whose primary values are scientific, I'm not sure I can imagine what it would take for me to put religion, politics or whatever ahead of scientific evaluation.
Nothing you say above quite conflicts with what I just said, but using words like "nonsense" and "dumb" don't do justice to the nature of the problem. If admitting one has a problem is the first step in tackling problems like drugs and alcohol, acknowledging that values trump reason and fact, that humans are not by nature rational animals, might be similarly necessary.
I'm actually pretty close to this. Politically, my "absolute"ness against the GOP is primarily in the mathematical sense. The more reps a party has, the more power that party has--especially in these days where the Republicans and Democrats are practically binary. Ideologically, on the other hand, I generally favor making the world a better place for those lacking in power, and although that puts me on the left side as a whole, there's plenty of room for flexibility. It's also why I typically like discussing ideology more than politics.
