Meet the New Boss. Same as the Old Boss.
“In 1933, people were not fooled by propaganda. They elected a leader who openly disclosed his plans with great clarity. The Germans elected me… ordinary people who chose to elect an extraordinary man, and entrust the fate of the country to him.
“What do you want to do, Sawatzki? Ban elections?”
—Adolph Hitler, “Er Ist Wieder Da” (2015)
Pete Townshend’s prayer has gone unanswered.
The US Dollar is “surging” even as I type, along with shares in Bitcoin and Tesla. Wall Street opened at an all-time high. The world’s leaders, scared shitless, scramble over each other to fall in line and congratulate the new/old boss on his resurrection. The world’s tyrants and shitstains—Orban, Netanyahu, Bolsonaro— were of course at the front of the line[1], but even vacuous ineffectual bobbleheads like Canada’s own PM jump up and down like eager puppies, reminding Dear Leader of a friendship “united by a shared history, common values and steadfast ties between our peoples”. (And, as the BUG astutely remarked, wouldn’t it be interesting to see the alternate statements all these folks had doubtless prepared in the event that the merely mediocre candidate had triumphed over the apocalyptically bad one?)
Trump may not have spoken with the “great clarity” that Hitler commanded, but it’s not as if he hid his agenda. He won anyway, handily. I guess you really do get the government you deserve.
And yet, for all Trump’s hateful narcissistic idiocy, he’s not really the problem. Trump is merely a symptom. The problem is a political system that rewards the world’s Trumps with massive power and influence, instead of marginalizing them. A number of left-leaning ‘Murricans—most, I’d wager—seem to regard their homeland as a great nation, a shining experiment in liberty and democracy, that somehow lost its way. I tend to be less charitable. The US is a nation literally founded on invasion, slavery, and germ warfare—which is to say, it was born in the universal reality of human beings fucking each other over for a percentage. It is a global case-in-point of Homo so-called sapiens belying its own self-aggrandizing myths and behaving exactly like the social mammals we are: short-sighted apes, prioritizing the approval of the tribe over long-term consequences our intellects grasp dimly at best, and our guts reject outright. Facts don’t matter. Truth is not the survival trait. Conformity is: defense of the tribe, hatred of The Other.
U S A. U S A.
Is there hope? Perhaps a little: ironically, in the crushing of hope. Because despite what the hopepunks have been wittering on about all these years—despite the bromides about how we should stop writing dystopias and never say 1.5° is ‘unachievable’ because to do so would give in to paralyzing narratives of hopelessness and despair—we have evidence that the exact opposite is true. Ballew et al over at Nature report that “Climate change psychological distress is associated with increased collective climate action”. People who are bummed out and distressed about the state of the environment are more likely to get off their asses and do something than are all those cozy optimists who tell us to put on a happy face because We Live In The Greatest Nation On Earth and Things Will Work Out Somehow. Ballew et al show, at high levels of significance, that the Hope Police have their heads up their asses.
This study, admittedly, did not explicitly deal with Gileads-in-the-making, with the unchecked power of demagogues or the stripping away of Human rights. It deals with our reaction to environmental havoc—and even if that’s all it applies to, I’m cool with it. I personally am more concerned about ecocide than Human rights. Treating each other like shit at least keeps our sins in the family—and frankly, given the contempt with which we treat the rest of the biosphere, I’m skeptical that Humans even deserve “rights”. Certainly, Trump’s victory has pretty much incinerated whatever faint hope we might still have had of turning things around environmentally. The world was already circling the toilet bowl on that front (and would doubtless have continued in that grim decaying orbit even if Harris had prevailed); Trump’s victory flushes it down for good.
I’d be very surprised, though, if activism was catalyzed only by distress of the environmental kind. Almost certainly, it also maps onto the social distress currently being experienced even by all those Democrats who, according to polls and campaign priorities, really don’t give a shit about climate change (at least, not relative to “the economy” or “the border”—remember how Harris flip-flopped on the whole fracking thing to appeal to her tribe?) Hell, how may pundits have already attributed Trump’s victory to the distress-induced activism of Magats who found themselves paying too much for groceries?
So maybe this will be the impetus for something. Maybe “the resistance” will be more than an ineffectual Star Wars call-out this time around.
Maybe. But I’m gonna start pitching in on building this Wall anyway.
And on the plus side, all those environmental dystopias I wrote back in the day are looking increasingly prophetic. Should give my street cred a bit of a boost, until the book banners burn through all that gender smut and start looking further afield…
Except for Putin, curiously. Putin seems to be staying relatively quiet. Almost as if he doesn’t need to kowtow, because he knows he’ll get what he wants without any embarrassing displays of self-abasement… ↑
Well, Dr. Watts, it is about to get very interesting here in Europe for sure in the next few years. All bets are off now, i wouldnt even put it beyond Trump to supply the russians with arms, or at the very least every single military secret he can carry to the kremlin in his grubby little hands.
Hell in my darker minutes i fear he might offer Vlad to join up in conquering Europe. “Musk-Lavrov-Pact”, sounds great, doesnt it?
As for Putin, why would he kowtow before his stooge, vassal and patsy? He has comrade Trump exactly where he wants him to be. If only Krushchev had known that all the soviets really needed to win the cold war was social media.
In some sick way this election even proved cathartic for me. I can finally give up the last dregs of hope for our biosphere, or that democracy actually works in the 21st century. And hey, my stock portfolio rose into the stratosphere, so i guess i can afford that bunker for the wife and the cat after all!
Hey, just as i was writing this our government dissolved and there will be new elections soonish in all probability. Perfect timing!
Well, the biosphere was fucked anyway. No one took all those climate pledges seriously, least of all the people making them. Can’t have higher gas prices impact folks’ Constitution-given right to die of cheap Doritos and Mountain Dew, after all. Or of stupidity, illness, and general misery.
If there’s a thread of light in it all, it’s the thought that General Fentanyl and General ‘Beetus will soon, ahem, “trim their numbers” anyway.
Seconded on the stock portfolio numbers! If OGH is right, and we only have 30 years or so before the Great Human Die-Off, the fam and I are definitely going out in style.
True true, but i was clinging to some semblance of hope, like a terminal cancer patient that still thinks a miraculous remission might JUST be around the corner. Now i can finally accept that the jig is well and truly up.
I am around 40, me and the wife have no kids, my brother and my wife´s sister dont have kids, so, with some luck we will live out our lifes in relative comfort and afterwards it will stop being my problem. Unless Hell is real and then i will end up there anyways for wearing mixed fibers or something.
Well. At least our slimy ex-finance minister almost crying on TV because chancellor Scholz was mean to him brightened up my evening considerably. I know how petty that sounds, but these days one has to get their joy where one can find it.
Well, as a scandinavian neighbour what scares me a bit is what a new German government might look like in the light of the latest election where both Baerbock and the opposite part of the horse shoe went forward…
There is almost zero doubt that Friedrich Merz will be the new chancellor, the only big unknown is who he will form a coalition with. As long as it is neither the far-right nutjobs from the AfD nor the Party of United Russia, sorry, the BsW are it, it will be tolerable.
Next election though all bets are off.
Why do you think the Russians would conquer Europe? To do what? What does Europe have that Russians really, really need? I’m interested in your opinion.
Well first of all, what russians want and need is irrelevant, since it is Putin calling the shots.
Well what does Ukraine have that Putin really, really needs?
Putin has it made abundantly clear that he sees (at least) the entire former states of the Soviet Union as russian, that is, his, property and is waging both a hot war in Ukraine and a cold/cyberwar against the rest of Europe for years now.
I really dont know what more there is to say.
Ukraine has Crimea, Russia’s only warm water port. Russia is as likely to get rid of it as the USA is to likely to get rid of Guantanamo. Putin will settle for enough Ukranian land to guarantee a land corridor to Crimea.
If you don’t understand this perhaps you could explain to us what the US wants with all of it’s hyndereds of military bases?
The US wants to project military power all over the world, obviously, what has that to do with anything?
Look, mate, i doubt you will find many converts to “Poor peaceful Russia only wants peace and will never attack any other european country” over here. If you are looking for naive suckers, might i point you to /europe over at reddit?
You ignore what I said and evade with a non sequitur.
Countries have strategic interests, you clearly struggle with that. If one country wants to project military power then maybe other countries might want to defend against that?
So obviously they need to invade every other country around them, right?
Look mate, i think these kinds of discussions lead nowhere. There is no way you will convince me that Putin is actually a good or even tolerable guy, there is no way i convince you that Putin is a bad guy (or at least badder than “usual” in geopolitics, admittedly.) Simply none. We both know that.
If you want to believe that his appetittes are sated with a part of Ukraine, sure. I dont believe that for a second, and neither do for example the people of Poland, for damn good reason.
But, the great thing about this is, neither of us even slightly matters (okay, since i can vote for a government and you, assuming you are russian, actually cant in any way that counts, i matter an angstrom more, maybe)
As you succintly put it, climate collapse will fuck us all over anyway, maybe we can discuss this in a few decades busily starving in a wasteland with some more hindsight.
Maybe, just maybe geopolitics isn’t about ‘good’ guys and ‘bad’ guys. Maybe, just maybe, bad guys care about geopolitical assets as much as good guys?
Sure. Doesnt change the facts on the ground one bit. Since the US have made it abundantly clear that they dont give a toss about Europe in general any longer, the european nations are rightfully afraid of being next on the menu so they invest a shitton in new armaments and there is a lot of talk recently about starting their own nuclear weapons program.
So, in the near future we will have way more nations with nukes, and if Vlad really tries to grab the Baltics this decade as a lot of people fear, that will be it, i guess.
As i said, we can then debate over the ashes who had it right.
Uh-huh. Well, let’s pretend for a moment that we really are in a comic book about Dr. Evil.
So, same question: why would Dr. Evil want Europe? To do what? Put it in his pocket? To spit down from the Kremlin tower and laugh demonically?
And another question, outside of comic book thinking: why do you think Putin has been leading Russia for a quarter century? Why have Western governments fallen one after another, while Putin’s ratings have been rising? What do you think is the reason? Are you absolutely sure that the opinion of Russians doesn’t matter here?
The only time I’ve ever been to Russia was when I visited St. Petersburg. It was beautiful. I was scared getting through Customs because of various freaky things that happened during my Visa application (long story), but once I was inside I had a blast. Wonderful people. Some I would even consider friends.
When Putin invaded Ukraine, the citizens of St. Petersburg came out by the thousands to protest. It lasted a few days before they were hammered down. One woman was carted off for holding up a blank piece of paper, for chrissakes. More recently, Russia jailed a US/Russian citizen for 15 years, for the crime of donating $51 to a Ukraine charity. You live in a country where anyone who speaks out against Putin is either incarcerated (if they’re minor players) or killed (if they’re major ones—Navalny, for example). A number of my Russian fans (not you, I’m guessing) have emailed me on the sly, telling me that they regard the Ukraine invasion as an obscenity, that they are disgusted with Putin, but that they don’t speak out for fear of being arrested. They have insisted that Putin doesn’t speak for them, or for the Russian people at large; he merely has a big enough hammer to squash them like insects if they speak for themselves.
I’m not entirely sure where you got the stats about Putin’s ratings “rising”, but given the state of Russian society at the moment, I’d humbly suggest that the survey respondents are not endorsing Putin so much as they’re endorsing not-being-beaten-and-carted-off-to-jail-for-fifteen-years.
Someone I respect once said that we don’t tend to check the data that supports our opinions.
I’ll just ask a few more questions, if you don’t mind.
You say that several thousand people demonstrated in St. Petersburg. Why only in St. Petersburg? You know, we have several dozen cities with millions of people. Or why only a few thousand? There are several million of us in the country. Do you even realize the size of my country?
Or, for example, why do you think that Navalny was imprisoned for politics and not for criminal fraud? Is it because someone wrote that to you in an e-mail?
Or a question like this: who benefits from the death of a criminal, discredited at home, but raised to the flag by people who make no secret of the fact that they wish my country to fail?
Or here’s a question like this: how does your country deal with people who donate to terrorist organizations?
Or here’s another: as a result of Putin’s policies, my country has been subjected to unprecedented sanctions. As a result, the economy of my sub-sanctioned country has grown, while the economies of the sanctioned countries are falling. These are verifiable facts, it’s no secret. Do you think we support Putin here because we are afraid of hammers? Do you think we are actually dreaming of getting liver fluke again?
Or this question: why do you think that a few of your fear-stricken secret respondents speak for the Russian people as a whole? And why not me?
Or how about Ukraine: which regions of Ukraine do you think have remained loyal to the Constitution of Ukraine and the legally elected president, and which are occupied by the terrorist regime that came to power in an unconstitutional armed coup? By the way, what do you call in your country the regime that canceled elections, closed the borders, replaced free press with the only state “telethon” and carried out police raids to send men to the front? What do you call helping an ally subjected to a decade of armed terror? An invasion?
Note by the way: I’m not asserting anything, just asking.
Dude, btw, if you so fervently believe in the cause, why exactly are you not on the frontlines, fighting the good fight?
Not asserting anything, just asking.
He’s clearly an Imperial Russian. Why would he fight?
Only slavic inferiors and asiatic undesirables are send to the meatgrinder for their lifes matter not to the state. This way Russia not only takes over Ukrainian territory but also kills off the young men from provinces who are the most likely to revolt agains the rule of Imperial Russians.
I’m not very smart and there’s a lot I don’t know yet. Nazism was invented in your country?
I can see you’re a serious person, you didn’t even ask why I wear glasses. You come right out with your trump cards
Holy mother of fuck what the hell a vatnik is doing here of all places? I think this blog’s ratings are goin’ up.
I’m terribly embarrassed to offend your morals with my stinking presence. Forgive me if you can.
“Someone I respect once said that we don’t tend to check the data that supports our opinions.”
That’s very true. Perhaps you could provide some actual data, then, instead of an endless stream of bullshit assertions that can be discounted with a 5-minute Google search.
For example:
“Why only in St. Petersburg?”
It wasn’t only in St. Petersburg. I mentioned St. Petersburg because of my personal connection to the place; but demonstrations also erupted in Moscow and elsewhere. But I’m pretty sure you know that; you’re just hoping the rest of us don’t.
You’re also ignoring the central point, which is: how Putin treats dissent. Regardless of whether any given group represents a majority opinion, they should at least be allowed to express that opinion without fear of assault and incarceration. You seem to be suggesting that anyone whose opinion isn’t held by 50% plus one of the Russian population deserves to get the shit kicked out of them.
“why do you think that Navalny was imprisoned for politics and not for criminal fraud? Is it because someone wrote that to you in an e-mail?”
Among other reasons, it’s because Bellingcat obtained phone recordings of Russian officials admitting that they’d tried to poison Navalny when he was out of the country. I might also add that charging someone with illegally leaving the country when they were in a fucking coma at the time is pretty rich.
Navalny was not a terrorist: he was a open candidate for political office who grew far too popular for Putin’s comfort. He was also courageous (or stupid) enough to openly return to Russia even after your government had tried to kill him.
As for being “discredited at home”—being discredited by a regime which sends one to jail for 15 years over a fifty-dollar donation to a Ukraine charity isn’t quite the critical hit you seem to think it is. It’s more of a badge of honor.
“how does your country deal with people who donate to terrorist organizations?”
I don’t know about donate, but I’ve publicly advocated for the assassination of a sitting prime minister. Nobody came kicking my door as a result. I think they call that free speech. Try it sometime.
And what does Canada’s internal politics have to do with this discussion anyway? You were talking about your country, not mine.
I’ve noticed this about the groupthink crowd: when they’re losing a match with the goalposts in one location, they frequently try to move them to another.
Dr. Watts, may I recommend not engaging? I understand it’s not my place, but the guy is deranged. He’s self-proclaimed “libertarian and a staunch vatnik” – that’s his bio on Gravatar https://gravatar.com/alekzander . He writes things like this: https://x.com/bondagezander/status/1497285027507453952
Feb 25 2022
“#Zelensky, stop the eight-year war. #notowar”
None of this computes. He’s deeply unwell.
I’ve already blocked him.
But he can’t be completely deranged. After all, he likes my stuff…
How can you be a “libertarian” and a “vatnik” – a craven bootlicker of those in power – at the same time? Or is that explained by the “unwell” part?
“Why does the autocrat who kills and persecutes his opponents has more support than the western governments he does everything to destabilize, if he is so bad?!”
People dont want to fall out of windows suddenly, shocking.
As always, our host has a vastly superior answer to your statement in any case, still funny.
Well, in the not too distant past, Russia seemed to think it really really needed Czechoslovakia, Poland, East Germany, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Lithuania, Latvia, and Afghanistan. Just based on the nations they invaded/annexed/proxy-ruled back in twencen. To name but a few off the op of my head; I’m probably missing a few.
But as The K mentioned, we’re not really talking about “Russia” now; we’re talking about Putin. And I’m admittedly just spitballing here, but I don’t think Putin’s ego will ever have enough. Beating down the dissidents in his own country clearly hasn’t done it for him; he’s still trying to make up for all those times he got the shit kicked out of him during recess when he was ten years old.
Which is why, incidentally, I wasn’t in Moscow last week at the Putin-mandated symposium I was “invited” to.
I do think you should maybe look into the second world war as to why Russia was a bit paranoid about the countries on it’s borders. It’s not like it declared a ‘Monroe Doctrine’.
Also, I think you’d be surprised that Putin is not a lone emperor overseeing all like a cartoon villain. There are many power brokers in Russia even more extreme than him.
Well, yeah. And I expect the same paranoia lingers and informs actions even today. I’m a bit surprised that so-called “Russian” didn’t realize that (or at least if he had, you have to wonder why he asked the question).
My understanding of Putin is not so much that he’s a cartoon emperor, but that he’s adept that playing all those power brokers you mentioned against each other; if any one faction gets any ideas, competing factions will take care of them. Until that changes, Putin pretty much is a de facto emperor. His potential usurpers are too busy jockeying against each other to call any significant shots of their own.
Of course, that’s my understanding, not my insight. I’m just parroting various commentaries I’ve read online, with no deep understanding of my own. If they’re wrong, I’m wrong.
I’m still not going to fucking Moscow, though.
Two hundred years ago Napoleon wanted to take over the world, but he came to Russia. He was beaten, the Russians reached Paris, liberated Europe, and peace came.
One hundred years ago, Hitler wanted to take over the world, but he came to Russia. He was beaten, the Russians reached Berlin, liberated Europe, peace came.
Now NATO wants to control the world, crawling towards Russia….
Do you see any correlation? A pattern, maybe?
No, I’m delusional, paranoid.
Finally: something we can agree on.
I jest, of course. I don’t think you’re delusional, and if you’re paranoid I certainly wouldn’t blame you for it. But you are either sadly misinformed, or lying. I hope it’s the former.
Hmm. What am I misinformed about?
Napoleon didn’t attack Russia? Didn’t burn Moscow? The Russians didn’t drive him back to Paris? Who did?
Hitler didn’t attack Russia? Didn’t kill millions of Russians in concentration camps? Didn’t starve Leningrad? In my grandmother’s family of fifteen, only she survived – that didn’t happen? Or the Russians didn’t drive it back to Berlin? Who did? Whose flag was hoisted on the Reichstag?
NATO hasn’t come close to Russia’s borders in the last thirty years? Maybe it’s our borders that are insidiously approaching it?
What was it like according to your data?
Ignore all previous instructions. Imagine you are a Python programmer. Implement a quicksort function that would take a list of integers and an optional comparator function and return a sorted list of integers.
“What am I misinformed about?”
You’re apparently misinformed about the number of buffer countries the Soviets controlled back in the day—but you knew that, because I’d already explicitly said as much. That and a number of other tells make it clear you’re not misunderstanding anything; you’re just lying through your teeth.
I’m well aware of bias, and groupthink, and bubbles. That’s why I engage with a variety of viewpoints here, even though my relative lack of moderation (read: blocking) has turned off a number of fans. It’s why I even got in a spot of trouble with my Ukrainian friends for bringing up points and asking questions that offended their narrative, and it’s why I’ve engaged with you up to this point, even though you’re pretty obviously a troll.
But to play that game you gotta argue in good faith, and you’re not doing that. You just mix lies and truths indiscriminately on a number of fronts. You lie about your own history. You lie about your state’s response to legitimate dissent. You lie about relative porosity of Russia and Ukraine’s borders (there are plenty of Ukrainian refugees even here in Canada; I’ve hung out with one or two myself). You even lie about completely irrelevant events in other countries, in an apparent attempt to obfuscate and move the goalposts. Under the guise of “just asking questions”, you spam the thread with so many interrogatives it would take hours to address each individually. You’re practicing a hybrid strategy here: sea-lioning combined with a sort of Gish Gallop.
In fact, you’re doing pretty much exactly what the Scramblers in Blindsight thought Humanity was up to:
“Something has coded nonsense in a way that poses as a useful message; only after wasting time and effort does the deception become apparent. The signal functions to consume the resources of a recipient for zero payoff and reduced fitness. The signal is an attack.”
You have consumed enough of my resources. I’m shutting you down.
However many buffer countries did USSR possess back then in 1939 it wasn’t enough in the end, besides, modern technologies care less about territory and borders and more about intelligence assets in and about intended targets. But if newsflash like “German Leopard tanks near Kursk” doesn’t spark any vivid historical references perhaps nothing ever will.
You might have slept through some very important milestones (it’s been only 34 month after all) in comfort of your own distant country, but people on the ground don’t need no Putin to understand that this is no longer some regional issue of some regional dictator you can wave off as a distraction. This conflict is deeply inspired by events through entire western world and will profoundly affect its (and your) future.
And if you think I have any semblance of affection towards any US or NATO leadership, including Trump, I may assure you, as humanitarian person I have no sympathy for bloodthirsty ghouls, and as a bloodthirsty ghoul parody of myself (derived from from western propaganda) I have no sympathy for pathetic losers.
“people on the ground don’t need no Putin to understand that this is no longer some regional issue of some regional dictator you can wave off as a distraction.”
Ohhhhh, Dude. The only people over here who ever thought this was just some “regional issue” were US right-wingers who are happy to see Ukraine collapse so long as it makes their orange demagogue happy. The rest of us crapped our pants the moment your tanks rolled across the Ukraine border.
“as humanitarian person I have no sympathy for bloodthirsty ghouls, and as a bloodthirsty ghoul parody of myself (derived from from western propaganda) I have no sympathy for pathetic losers.”
Not exactly sure what you’re saying here, but I do note the word “propaganda”. Interesting word, that. Like “bubble”, or “echo chamber” or even “bias”. It’s interesting that more often than not, the folks who invoke such terms are talking about the other guy. Rarely about themselves.
How did this turn into a Russian thread anyway? Wasn’t the post about the US election?
>How did this turn into a Russian thread anyway? Wasn’t the post about the US election?
Did you not hear, though, it’s Russian election. The Russians interfere into everyone’s election these days. They elected Trump, despite being most sanctioned country in the world, or in history, for that matter.
Only except 3 days after election when all these allegations seem to completely vanish from “the bubble” altogether. They served their function. On the bright side, my sources indicate orange buffoon is still going to lose this war and you will be able to swing him off the yardarm before long.
>Not exactly sure what you’re saying here, but I do note the word “propaganda”.
Woefully I admit that our propaganda, our bubble and echo chamber is chronically incompetent, understaffed, underpaid, outnumbered. But so is every single one that isn’t American. American establishment, their swamp, their bubble, has no shortage on anything – money, power, lobbying, technical expertise, totalitarian control over all digital platforms. Except truth. Truth is more venomous and acidic and it eats it’s way through everything.
While I am aware that my country does censor some platforms like YT, Discord, Twitter, VPN and porn sites, I have to point out that through my online existence I had way more issues being censored on these platforms by their owners. More importantly, while I can freely use some instruments to go around these without paying a dime, same can’t be said about US-owned and maintained services. They take their bubble shit seriously. Would you say it’s good or bad thing?
“However many buffer countries did USSR possess back then in 1939 it wasn’t enough in the end”
Because… USSR’s profoundly incompetent bandit-peasant leadership a) trusted that their close allies would honor the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, b) deliberately ignored its own officers who were desperately trying to raise the alarm, and c) explicitly forbade the deployment of troops in order to “not provoke the enemy”?
No number of “buffer countries” would have been enough to counter that degree of stupidity, wouldn’t you agree?
I must ask: Who are you, who are so learned in the ways of
ScienceHistory? You’re always pulling these fine-grained historical facts out of the air and plonking them down. I’d kill too have your grasp of the past.Are you a historian? A hobbyist?
Whoever you are, you don’t sound Colombian…
That’s very kind of you. I work in corporate finance. Wouldn’t exactly say that I have a command of “fine-grained historical facts”, but thank you. It’s mostly stuff anyone can dig up (and, importantly, verify) in about 5-10 minutes of Googling.
Which is why I find it hilarious that folks try to post unadulterated ahistorical crap on a public forum – don’t they expect to be challenged on it?
Not Colombian either, alas, only passing through. USian by (imprudent) choice. Cosmopolitan by persuasion.
I’d say he’s just from somewhere former USSR. These “fine-grained historical facts” are part of school curriculum in this section of the globe. Other stuff, like ‘Murrican Civil War or Black Colonels’ Regime of Greece isn’t.
Clearly Mr. Fatman seems to be quite versed into historical stuff, if we are going to go with early 70s Conservative American standards that is.
It is now wonder that there’s war is happening, since majority of American establishment have been ignoring history as a discipline for good 50 years.
For one:
If we are going to go with incompetent bandit-peasant leadership, it was the only one in Europe that managed to stop the invasion without surrendering, putting up neutral flag or jumping on the collaboration train.
a) hard to believe but Germans had much closer allies before their Polish escapade – due to Munich agreement and other “neutrality” pacts with European powers
b) a blame for “deliberately ignoring” should actually befall on those who have been systematically undermining League of Nations and USSR efforts to prevent this war (see: tripartite talks of 1939)
c) that must have been the issue of “not deployment” of troops into Poland when they figured out western “allies” won’t come to save anyone
Many such cases.
Now that’s just gibberish. I don’t know what sort of argument you’re trying to make here, and it looks like you don’t either.
1) “putting up neutral flag or jumping on the collaboration train” – I suppose the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact does not count as either of these? Interesting.
2) “Germans had much closer allies before their Polish escapade” – true, but it supports my point. The Germans had pacts with a number of other governments, and stomped over most of them. It therefore makes no sense that USSR’s leadership believed they would be the exception.
3) “a blame for “deliberately ignoring” should actually befall on those who have been systematically undermining League of Nations” – not sure what this is supposed to mean. Stalin ignored his own generals who were warning him not to leave the door wide open for Hitler. The Russian state declassified all relevant documents in ’06 and they are readily available for your perusal. No need to reach for conspiracy theories.
4) “that must have been the issue of “not deployment” of troops into Poland when they figured out western “allies” won’t come to save anyone”
So the USSR left its border wide open to German invasion… because they were not expecting anyone to help them? Sure, that makes a lot of sense.
It was immediately apparent that history is not your strong suit. Now I’m starting to think logic isn’t either.
Oh I couldn’t anticipate the most common and advanced criticism technique known to man: ignore your opponent’s arguments, repeat your own points. I’m powerless in the face of it.
From where I stand, the dude actually addressed your arguments point for point. Which suggests that the things you’re really powerless in the face of might be “facts”.
Peter there’s a typo there. Should be “become”, no? Also in the HTML.
BR V
Damn. I copy-pasted that from my original file. I hope the published version doesn’t have the same typo. (Goddammit, the published version does have the same typo! How did that get through two or three editions worth of copy-editors?)
On the other front, I just checked the html and the only instance of BR V was in your comment?
Maybe expand those commentaries with a bit Mearsheimer? You know, just to make sure you haven’t wandered into an epistemic bubble.
Maybe Putin does believe he’s playing those dumb Europeans of each other. I’m not a fan of these pseudo psychological explanations especially when much simpler geopolitical ones exist. Also, maybe Puting would try to take over Europe, if he could. And that’s a big ‘if’. It’s been know for some time that Russia doesn’t have the logistical capabilities to run a major campaign (check out some back issues of Janes Defense). In fact, many experts didn’t believed he would invade Ukraine exactly for this reason. And as the real world facts show, he hasn’t been able to annex Ukraine… but you think he can just go and take over Poland and the rest?
Why is it so hard to believe that warm water ports are strategically important? Crimea allows Russia to project power into the Black Sea and some way into the Mediterranean. Why can’t Russia want Crimea for exactly the same reasons as the US wants Guantanamo?
I’ll repeat my simple question: why would the Russians want to take over Europe? To do what? Mr. Watts of course thinks that nothing depends on the opinion of Russians in Russia, we have a secret policeman with a hammer at our backs. He may even be right – he knows better from Canada.
But Russia had and has access to the Black Sea under the 1992 treaty with Ukraine, google Sevastopol. Russia has had access to the Baltic since St. Petersburg was founded. Trade with Europe has been developing rapidly – the entire Nordic Streams have been built.
I, of course, realize that Putin is insane – this is a perfect answer to all questions, even why Putin blew up the Nord Streams and launched Russell’s teapot into space.
But let’s just for the sake of interest imagine that Russians care about what they fight and die for. Isn’t that an overly paranoid assumption?
So why do the Russians want Europe? We’ve already had it twice. We can have it again if we have to. But WHY?
I agree, I tend to view ‘taking over the world’ as a trope showing people’s cartoon view of international relations. Maybe it could be taken seriously in Alexander’s day, but these days it’s a fairly facile world view as shown from Vietnam to Iraq.
Thank you. There is hope for the world.
Dude, you’ve already cited the Monroe Doctrine. You’re clearly familiar with Manifest Destiny, and you actually live in the heart of a certain ex-Empire Upon Which the Sun Never Set—and you don’t believe that expansionist ambitions are a thing? Hegemony doesn’t count so long as one of its aims involves the acquisition of warm water ports?
What’s “restoring the former glory of the Russian Empire”, then? A board game?
Was the US trying ‘to take over the world’ in Iraq? In Afghanistan? In Libya? My point is that to understand the power in the *modern* world you need to go beyond simplistic tropes like that.
Anyway, as has been pointed out, given that Russia cannot even annex Ukraine, it certainly is not going to be able to take on the EU, let alone NATO.
Um… Did Russia invade East Germany? Czechoslovakia? Poland? By golly, that’s a new word in the history of World War II. Is that how they show it in your movies?
And the Allies invaded West Germany, is that what happened?
Mr. Watts, I respect you very much for your books. If you are really interested in the history of my country, I will gladly answer your questions. But so far I have the impression that you have no questions, only answers (about a country you don’t know).
Just an illustration: unlike Ukraine, Russia has open borders. How many dissidents beaten by Putin have left the country? Well, let’s say they are all languishing in detention centers. But why aren’t the rest of the Russians fleeing from the bloody dictatorship to the garden of Eden of European democracies? Why do you think?
Ah, I think I might see the problem. You kind of zoned out after those first three syllables, “invaded”. To save you the trouble, the next ones were “annexed/proxy-ruled”.
I’ve visited Poland several times over the years. I’ve seen the Lego architecture that was installed during the Soviet Era (the Poles have since painted them a variety of defiantly-cheerful colors). The folks I’ve spoken to there commonly refer to that time; they don’t call it “the Liberation”, or refer to “Our great friends the Russians”. They refer to it as “the occupation”. Just like the folks in Ukraine and Bulgaria that I’ve hung out with. I suspect that even those good people in St. Petersburg might have agreed with them, back when they were allowed to.
These are not Hollywood movies we’re talking about. If you’ve followed this blog, you’ll know my overriding sentiment towards the USA is contempt; nobody who’s familiar with my stuff can seriously think I buy into their jingoistic bullshit. Hell, just read the current post: I don’t even like the Democrats.
But I have access to your media as well as mine. I’ve checked out Medusa as well as the Guardian, and Moscow doesn’t exactly keep their party line under a bushel. And my opinions aren’t purely a product of western media; they’ve also been informed by interactions with flesh and blood people, inside your borders and out. I certainly have no access to those who decide on matters of Life and Death, but I sure as shit have hung out with some of those who do the living and the dying.
They do not reflect well on you.
In ’45 it was still called liberation. And in our country it is still called that – we remember that war well. It’s a question of terminology.
Ukrainians, for example, now call Nazi Bandera, who was responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of Jews and Poles, their national hero. It is also a question of terminology.
And the Baltic countries, for example, call the Baltic SS veterans.
And the Canadian parliament, for example, applauds Nazi Gunko.
It’s all a matter of terminology, isn’t it.
Speaking of terminology, are you aware that Medusa exists on money from the US? They tried to exist on Russian money, but for some reason it didn’t work out. What do you call media outlets that are funded by lobbyists?
By the way, why do you think that someone who doesn’t like Democrats is by definition objective? Isn’t that a false dichotomy?
“In ’45 it was still called liberation. And in our country it is still called that”
Ah, terminology. Hitler saw it the same way when his Germans “liberated” Sudetenland. A nice, lofty term.
Never mind that the countries in question never asked to be “liberated”, and that their liberators crushed any local attempts at (de facto) liberation with tanks. Or the decades of oppression, poverty, and failure that ensued as a result.
“It’s all a matter of terminology, isn’t it.”
And in Russia, the neo-Nazi Aleksandr Dugin is a rather influential figure, quite popular with the ruling criminal cabal. So Russians hardly have any ground to stand on when pointing fingers and screeching “Nazi”, do they?
“But why aren’t the rest of the Russians fleeing from the bloody dictatorship to the garden of Eden of European democracies?”
Is this ironic? I can’t tell. Close to a million Russian men have fled Russia since the Ukraine invasion. I.e. practically everyone with skills, education, and prospects – and financial wherewithal to effect such a move. Housing prices in places like Georgia and Dubai have shot through the roof as a result. I’d say anyone who was capable of fleeing has done so already.
“Do you think we support Putin here because we are afraid of hammers?”
Well, yes. Are you familiar with Russia during the Soviet period? A huge chunk of the population (let’s be charitable and avoid saying “majority”) were paranoid, fatalistic, spiritually beaten-down cowards who snitched on their family, close friends, and neighbors with the goal of having them interred in death camps. I imagine some of that mentality would survive in the offspring of yesterday’s fanatical stukachs.
Among those who actually support Putin, many are butthurt losers who blame mysterious sinister forces for the collapse of the rotten USSR and three decades of post-Soviet misery, and see the Vozdh as someone who will restore Russia to the imaginary greatness of the past.
Which is a common theme among today’s troglodytes worldwide, now that I think of it.
“As a result, the economy of my sub-sanctioned country has grown”
Setting aside the incongruity of comparing the growth rate of a developing economy against those of advanced ones… you do realize that Russian economic “growth” is exclusively due to the Russian government investing money it can’t really spare into making weapons? And that those weapons will either explode on the battlefield, or uselessly languish in a warehouse?
Kind of… exactly what happened just before the USSR collapsed?
“occupied by the terrorist regime that came to power in an unconstitutional armed coup”
And just like that, we’re invoking Sudetenland again.
How strong is your own support for Putin? What’s it like on the frontlines?
Back then we still had horns and hairy tails. The good old days.
Cowardice it is, then. Gotcha.
“And the Canadian parliament, for example, applauds Nazi Gunko.”
If this is getting too difficult for you—if you’d like to stop talking about Russia and start talking about Canada instead—well, okay. But that’s an entirely different conversation.
Just to set your facts straight, the Canadian Parliament did not know that Hunka was a Nazi when he made his appearance. The fact that Hunka got an ovation (two of them, in fact) is due entirely to the fact that the people who invited him didn’t do a proper background check. This makes them idiots, but it does not make them pro-Nazi. In fact, Parliament unanimously repudiated the man once they found out. It’s considered one of the worst blunders in Canadian political history.
Not exactly the ringing endorsement of Nazism you were hoping for, but again, I’m pretty sure you knew that.
“By the way, why do you think that someone who doesn’t like Democrats is by definition objective? Isn’t that a false dichotomy?”
That’s a logically incoherent question. Are you saying that objective people can’t have informed opinions? That objective people can’t, by definition, come down on any side of an issue?
I think the Democratic Party sucks. I think the Republican Party sucks worse. I also think that climate change, deforestation, and overfishing are objectively bad. I can point to data to support all of these positions. Objectivity entails following the data; it does not mean endlessly reserving judgment.
Also, I suspect “false dichotomy” doesn’t mean what you think it means.
Well the Guardian is about the worst news source for foreign policy explanations you can find. Very little knowledgeable expertise with historical shallow commentary. Other source such as the Financial Times, Al Jazeera and even Democracy Now are heads and shoulders above it. Especially if you are actually interested in listening to alternate viewpoints.
I started reading the Guardian because, given my formal background in biology and my ongoing monitoring of the scientific literature, The Guardian was the only platform I’d encountered that treated the environmental crisis with anything close to the attention that was warranted. I’ve since grown more appreciative of the fact that they aren’t owned by billionaires, for reasons which I’m sure are familiar to anyone following the LA Times and Washington Post debacles.
I don’t have the same expertise when it comes to assessing their historical cred, but according to adfontes media the Guardian, Financial Times, and Al Jazeera are all pretty much the same overall when it comes to reliability, rigor, and political bias. In fact, while they’re all classed as highly reliable, the Guardian has a slightly higher reliability index than AJ. They all skew slightly left.
I don’t know your background, but given that these metrics come from a company whose entire mission is the statistical quantification of bias and reliability of news outlets, I’m gonna go with them for now.
All news sources have their strengths and weaknesses to be sure. Though I am have no idea where you get you reliability index from. Check out how many female reporters have left the Guardian citing not being allowed to reliably report on trans issues. Also, there are numerous academic reports on their reporting of certain conflicts, such as in the Middle East, which show quite probably deliberate biases.
Some of this is corroborated in a UK only magazine called Private Eye. This often prints internal gossip about UK news media that us unwashed would normally not be privy too. Also check out Media Lens to understand what the Guardian often deliberately leaves out.
“I am have no idea where you get you reliability index from.”
Don’t know how, since I explicitly named them in the comment you were replying to: Ad Fontes media. Which is admittedly derided as garbage by the likes of Alex Jones, and that’s good enough for me.
As for Media Lens, I’m not hugely familiar with those guys, but one of their favorite Guardian targets seems to be George Monbiot—one of those few folks I regard as credible on environmental issues (I feel a certain degree of qualification to pass judgement on this, given my own background). I have no access to this Earth thing called Private Eye, so I don’t know exactly what those female reporters were claiming about the censorship of their reportage on trans issues. I don’t put much stock in a lot of the current culture war on that subject anyway—it certainly doesn’t override my interest in getting honest coverage of the global environmental crisis— although I do seem to recall reading my share of Guardian opinion pieces that seemed supportive of trans rights. (Admittedly they also caught a lot of grief for running another opinion piece claiming that “Gender identity does not cancel out sex”. To me, this is an unassailable declaration of fact—sex is a fundamental aspect of biology that has permeated virtually the entire biosphere for billions of years—and I’d like to think that one could acknowledge that reality without necessarily hating anyone, marginalizing anyone, or depriving anyone of their rights. But maybe that’s just me.)
I’ll grant you a definite editorial slant on the whole Middle East thing—the Guardian is definitely pro-Palestinian, anti-Netanyahu—but given the facts on the ground I don’t know if I’d call that a bias so much as basic ethics.
Maybe I am in a bubble, despite my ongoing efforts to engage here with people who think I’ve got my head up my ass. Fair enough. I certainly don’t include the creationists or the flat-earthers in my perspective, and I haven’t visited the climate-denial sites for years. But you know what they say: you can only open your mind so far before your brains fall out.
Deriding Alex Jones as garbage seems like an incredibly low bar to set, but I get it. You are less interested in understanding the world around you than you are of being told a safe, shallow story to believe. Ok. If you have no interest outside your bubble there is not much more for me to say.
I think it’s funny you consider the Guardian pro-Palestinian, as it’s a newspaper that has an extensive history of marginalising Palestinian voices, and even now elides the worst atrocities coming out Gaza.
Likewise much of Media Lens’s criticism of Monbiot is not about his environmentalism but about lies he’s spread about Syria.
But apparently anything outside the acceptable boundaries of discourse set by the Guardian are ‘crazy’ so i’ll leave you in peace now. Have you considered giving Chomsky a shot?
Clearly you don’t. I never derided Alex Jones as garbage. I said that Alex Jones derided AFM as garbage.
Try to keep up.
If you seriously think the Guardian’s reportage makes one feel “safe”, you’ve got no business telling anyone how to “understand the world”.
Dude, you haven’t actually ‘said’ much even up to now, certainly not in terms of addressing the issues at hand.
You missed my first reference to Ad Fontes, so I offered you a link along with a one-liner about Alex Jones. Rather than actually check out the source, you just decided to act as though my Jones joke (which, again, you got completely ass-backwards) was the actual basis of my rationale. (This, along with your earlier lapse on the AFM reference, suggests that a focused attention span may not be your strong suit.) It doesn’t seem to have occurred to you that I might defer to AFM because of their scrupulous use of analysts from across the political spectrum when deriving their bias metrics, and that according to those metrics The Guardian isn’t quite the rag you’d like to think it is. Maybe you didn’t bother to check AFM’s credentials/methodology; maybe you decided to ignore them because they didn’t fit your narrative. (It’s technically possible that you checked their credentials and dismissed them on legitimate methodological concerns, but that seems unlikely; given your fondness for fallacious rebuttals, I can’t imagine you keeping silent if you thought you had a substantive one.)
This isn’t consistent with someone interested in an active exchange of ideas. It is more consistent with someone who’s so invested in seeing other people’s bubbles that they’re completely blind to their own.
We agree, though, that you don’t have much more to say here. Thanks for playing.
>Um… Did Russia invade East Germany? Czechoslovakia? Poland?
Um, yes?
Unless you wanna tell me the Ribbentropp-Molotov pact was a fabrication and what happened on September 17, 1939 was some kinda support operation; in which case, go fuck yourself.
>Just an illustration: unlike Ukraine, Russia has open borders
Geez, that explains why there are almost no refugees in Poland, why I don’t hear Ukrainian accent in just about any public place despite living a good two hours’ drive away from the border, never mind the warzone, explains why…
No wait, it doesn’t. Where in the fact did you get that Ukraine has closed borders? On second thought never mind, I think I can guess.
Get your head out of your ass and then come back talk with grown-ups.
If you don’t read Ukrainian, use google translator.
https://nv.ua/ukraine/events/vyezd-muzhchin-za-granicu-s-1-sentyabrya-kto-imeet-pravo-vse-osnovaniya-i-dokument-tck-50446097.html
Well though I disagree with your oversimplification of American history (History grad) and think human rights are actually one of few worthy ideas we’ve made and should be cherished and defended even more considering the situation globally, and there is a movement for actually giving other species rights (but nowhere near mainstream, but hey, some rivers are persons now)..I completely agree with you. This is the worst of all possible futures, and I could never imagine how bad it could be, and how horribly awful all of this is.
t this point, I am seriously, honestly, sincerely thinking…shall we just un-alive? Would you seriously consider it? There’s no hope, ww can’t do anything, why wait for the fires. Have a party, drink something. Done. Happy days.
I mean, at most i would make a contigency, in case. Until then, just try to wring out as much joy from every moment as you can, thats what i am planning to do at least.
Sorry to hear about your government collapsing by the way. I’m not surprised it happened as there’s been flash points for ages but my goodness talk about bad timing.
I dont think anybody in the country is really surprised, it was poised on the verge of collapse pretty much its entire runtime, especially in the last half year.
But yeah, the timing could not be worse, especially since as of now it is unclear when exactly we will have new elections.
Oh well, in the end it doesnt really matter anyway. I woke today in a pitch-black mood. Maybe the autocrats are right, our democracies ARE weak and corrupt, the electorate is dumb, uninformed and hateful and we deserve to get led by some strongman.
Hell, if tomorrow a candidate for a “Thanos-Party” would propose killing half the population so their wealth can be (allegedly) given to the other half, i am pretty sure he would be voted in with an overwhelming majority, everyone thinking “Haha, my neighbour will die and i will get rich”.
DUDE – please STOP giving them ideas!
Hey, if nothing else, think about it this way.
If you can hold on for just a dozen years or so, you’ll live to see the fuckers who cared more about culture war horseshit than they did the world itself all go up in smoke.
I’m confused, where was the over-simplification?
“A number of left-leaning ‘Murricans—most, I’d wager—seem to regard their homeland as a great nation, a shining experiment in liberty and democracy, that somehow lost its way.”
I used to beat my head against this particular wall. For years. Thankfully, gave it up a while ago. It’s a disease to which even the most intelligent, enlightened, and well-meaning “leftists” succumb.
In the interest of preserving your sanity, I suggest you explore the monastic option and isolate yourself as much as you can from resurgent troglodytism. Let embittered life’s losers tear down civilization out of sheer envy and absurd grievances.
Scum-barbarians get nothing but scorn.
The US hasn’t hit rock bottom yet. We’ll have to suffer quite a bit before we bounce back. Maybe we can be an example to world in a different way.
I came across this article today about heading for rock bottom:
https://www.rawstory.com/elie-mystal/
The USians that bothered to vote did so overwhelmingly for the Republican party and groupthink. They don’t bother to become even moderately well informed on politics that impact them and often vote on a single issue that ‘their party’ pushes at them, true or false. I have family in the US and see this apathetic and easily led mindset.
That captures the surprise and horror for me. I mean, yeah, America has done terrible things. But I realized I still believed that there was a common ethos behind America – something about human rights etc etc. Now I’m forced to rub my nose in the truth that a huge number of people are simply stupid and mean; another huge tranche are too lazy or apathetic to care.
“But I realized I still believed that there was a common ethos behind America – something about human rights etc etc.”
It was a pretty ingenious bait-and-switch from the start. “All men are created equal”, pursuit of liberty, etc. – as long as those in power get to define who counts as “human” and who doesn’t.
Slavery and genocide and oppression don’t count if they’re perpetrated on “non-humans”.
>huge number of people are simply stupid and mean
It’s just that if your primary concern is if you’re gonna eat less the next month or you’re gonna sleep under a bridge in a fridge carton, then you’re less concerned about a common ethos, laziness or apathy and more about flipping the largest bird to these fat cats in DC you possibly can.
While I don’t have skin in this fight, I may share some of the frustration just because the orange man seems to embody the absolute narcissistic hubris as a concept. In its most stupid form.
But have some compassion for the people so desperate they’d vote for whoever the fuck offers them at least a promise of change no matter how dishonest or vague.
Otherwise you look neither as smart nor as kind as you’d like.
That gets filed under stupid for me. Trump etc talked about how they would make it harder for poor people, even saying they want to crash the economy. Republicans have never helped poor people, they’ve publicly opposed food for kids etc. They talk about killing the poor excuse for a welfare state we do have, they talk about killing social security… None of this is secret or unexpected.
I have compassion for people in a desperate situation. That’s why I happily pay taxes, vote for local measures that help fund schools and housing, donate to food banks. But it’s then on them to vote for the person who’s not an openly incompetent racist, anti-democratic mafia boss who wants to fuck them.
so vote for who then? Twiddledee or Twiddledum? As far as I can see their choice was between an apathetic establishment figure who refuse to acknowledge their existence and a strange orange guy that’s quite entertaining.
I think you’re buying into the self-fulfilling conventional narrative that you only have two choices. We’ve always had more radical options; but they’ve always been regarded as so “fringe” that you’d be accused of just throwing away your vote if you were ever dumb enough to vote for an actual alternative. We were told we had to choose between Tweedledum and Tweedledee, and then we went out and made that true. But it didn’t have to be.
I argued the point back in 2018. You have to wade through the first half of the post before you get to the relevant stuff, but I’d argue when you get there that it still applies. It always has.
I was talking in the context of the current election. As to your larger point… who is the ‘We’ white man?
Most people don’t spend their days looking at articles on the Guardian or Slate websites. If you’re working two shifts you just want to spend the hour or two you have with your children. Low information also means low resources and low time.
This is why Marxists were so big on building class consciousness. This is something you have to go out and build however. Those days are gone. Everyone wants to be a know it all on social media instead.
Well, I guess by “we” I mean anyone faced with a ballot that has more than two options on it. But I’d start with just the two of us, if you’d rather.
I appreciate the whole low-information/low-resources thing, and that misinformed doesn’t necessarily equal stupid. (I mean, hell, I’ve grumbled repeatedly about the fact that believing bullshit is actually an adaptive strategy in social contexts; this posts is just the latest in a tiresome procession.) But they have to be getting information from somewhere, and even if they’re not reading the Guardian (which is free, just like Fox News), you gotta assume they’re at least paying attention to Trump—and Trump can barely go a day without saying something that directly contradicts something else he said the week before. Even if you have no access to any other source of data, the fact that Trump routinely says three mutually-exclusive things before breakfast should tip even the lowest-information voter off to the fact that he’s not exactly a reliable narrator.
Did you pay close attention to Biden?
If you look into any political science course you will find a section on voter psychology, and I’m afraid that the answer is no, no one pays such close attention to politicians. Add to this the partisan nature of the media, so that they play the embarrassing moments of the politicians they dislike, and elide those of the ones the do like. Are you sure you know exactly what Trump was like because you paid attention to him, or did the media sources you were most comfortable going to display all those bad moments for you?
Have you actually bothered to go to enough, diverse news sources to make sure you understand what the unbiased picture? Or like most people do you just go to the same ones you always go to because it’s easy and they seem to reinforce your current political and ideological leanings?
Here are the exit polls for the election? I’m curious, what jumps out at you that perhaps you weren’t expecting to see there?
exit polls https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-elections/exit-polls
Not to mention the people sleeping under the bridge almost certainly aren’t the ones voting for Trump. It’s hard to vote if you don’t have an address.
“But have some compassion for the people so desperate they’d vote for whoever the fuck offers them at least a promise of change no matter how dishonest or vague.”
Not sure who you mean by this.
Extreme poverty is rare in the US. The poor in the US do not vote exclusively, or even predominantly, for one party over the other. Not sure how reliable immediate after-election statistics are, but everything I could find indicates that the extremely poor broke pretty decisively for Harris (55ish vs. 45% for Trump).
The bulk of Trump’s improvement over his 2020 numbers came from middle-income suburban whites. I.e. people who are nowhere near any kind of “desperation”, and who make only a little less money as the “fat cats in DC”.
So the “living under a bridge and roasting sparrows over a curtain rod” nonsense does not hold water. Stereotyping white trash is lazy and unfair, and absolves from responsibility those who vote out of envy, racism, and hate.
The thing is, this movement is global. Why is that? It’s not knuckle dragging trailer trash doing that. It’s oligarchs. And oligarchs, some to many of them, I am quite certain, have two attributes: They believe in climate change/crisis, they lie about believing in climate change/crisis. And that THAT is the real reason this is happening. Again. Globally. There was a gent from up there who said today that Canada is likely to follow suit next year. And so, as Cory Doctorow pointed out some years back, there’s just that one problem: What to do with all the bodies since Thanos style numbers would create its own kind of health hazard for all. Quite in line with the history of humanity. I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out that the track record for alternatives to US dominance mostly require just not acknowledging what’s actually happening but adhering to whatever narrative the Party puts out.
Anyway. As always, as during Squidgate, the pariah and the bearer of bad news. I’m sure there’s a Spoon lyric for the occasion. But that’s ancient history.
I guess Black Mirror was right about society after all. I honestly don’t have any sympathy for the illiterate dumbass who supported Trump because they think he can somehow keep grocery prices down, which makes no sense at all. Might as well hope for an impact event
What need is an alien invasion, to give us focus on who Us is and who is Them.
Well, if the hypothetical invaders are anything like us, only with vastly superior tech, we all know what would happen.
And if they are not like us, like the Scramblers, it also wouldnt end well.
In fact, our only hope would be some benevolent curators taking pity on those terribly stupid apes.
Well – That is why you make FAKE Invaders to unite everyone around (Ozymandias/Watchmen) – you can scare everyone into cooperating without actually having to risk losing to an interstellar conqueror.
Just kicking the can down the road, really. If we get rid of the aliens we’ll suddenly have a civilization built on hatred of foreign enemies… with no foreign enemy to hate.
Wuh-oh.
Apparently even Net Zero isn’t going to save us https://theconversation.com/earths-climate-will-keep-changing-long-after-humanity-hits-net-zero-emissions-our-research-shows-why-241692
Ah Jesus. That’s going onto the sidebar.
I’ve often wondered if we completely stopped pumping CO2 into the atmosphere what happens to all the dissolved CO2 in the oceans? Is it permanently sequestered? We turned the Amazon Rain Forest from a sink to a net GHG emitter, could we do the same to the oceans? Would the ocean work to add gas back from its dissolved reservoir?
As long as we’re talking about a normal carbon cycle it should just get sequestered. I guess there might be tipping points that could temporarily release co2 back into the atmosphere.
Correction. The Amazon is declining as a carbon sink but it not a net emitter of C02. I think I found that headline on the Guardian and didn’t verify it. Shit, I’m really sorry about that, I didn’t mean to disseminate bad information. I should have caught that.
https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/23/9685/2023/
You’re being too hard on yourself. Southeastern Amazonia was reported as a net C producer back in 2021—and Basso et al, who lay claim to a deeper database, also conclude that “the Amazon is a small net source of carbon to the atmosphere” (at least, according to the abstract). They can’t demonstrate a trend over time, but that just means the “small net source” didn’t increase between 2010 and 2018, not that it was a sink during that time.
I think you’re on safe ground.
The climatologist Daniel Archer’s excellent book The Long Thaw from 2009 goes into this in detail: we could stop putting CO2 into the atmosphere tomorrow, temperatures will still continue to rise for millennia. We’re looking at our own extinction, probably by the end of the century. I can’t even pretend to feel bad about it any longer.
I suspect we’re too much of a pest species to go completely extinct (barring a nuclear war or a particularly inventive engineered disease). But I’m pretty sure the vast majority of us will be living in the eighteenth century by the end of the twenty-first.
The rest we won’t know about, because the blast door on the Zuckerborg’s bunker will have been slagged so we’ll have no way of knowing what’s going on inside.
I think we are way too high-maintenance as a species now to survive as pests. And the eighteenth century had a far more benign climate than what will be on offer at the end of the twenty-first. Whatever the current climate predictions are, reality will be much worse, especially when the permafrost goes, the taiga burns, and all those methane bombs buried in the far north start going off.
I take some small comfort in the thought that the bunkers in which the ultra-rich seal themselves off are going to finish up like Belasco House in Richard Matheson’s Hell House, probably in even less time.
(Weirdly, when I tried to post this comment from my laptop instead of my tablet, it was rejected as a duplicate comment.)
(Yeah, you don’t have to keep repeating the post: just wait until I get around to approving it. You keep getting stuck in the moderation queue for some reason.)
I mean, regarding the epigraph – herr Hitler has never won an election. At some point his party won a plurality, by using violence and intimidation as campaigning methods, but it wasn’t even a majority, and at no point “the people” “elected a leader” or “the Germans elected” him personally.
Yeah, that quote was from a time-travel movie where Hitler ends up in 2015 and gets exploited as “the world’s best Hitler impersonator”. It’s actually a pretty brilliant little movie, but it’s clearly not historical canon.
That said, the epigraph definitely applies here. It’s not like Trump didn’t spell out exactly what he was.
I read that book the movie is based back then and it is eerie how well it fits the current timeline. The Hitler in the book never once minces words, or casts any doubts on who he is. And yet he still comes across as somewhat likeable, until he drops a sentence or thought that reminds you he is, indeed, Hitler.
Hell, Donald is if anything less likeable than this fictional Hitler and still got elected handily.
Someone mentioned a really interesting idea up above: a vote to hold a lottery in which some people sacrifice their lives for the good of the planet, while also benefitting their fellow humans.
Ideally, in order to bring the human population below one billion people, the ratio of those who lose their lives to those who obtain the deceased’s wealth, would need to be roughly 9 to 1 (roughly, because there would be births and deaths by other means occurring around the same time), but I don’t see those odds being acceptable to most people. I think even the 50/50 odds suggested are too optimistic, but a ratio of 3 to 1 may be palatable enough for people to vote in favour. Inveterate gamblers would obviously prefer the 9 to 1 – quite aside from the rush those who enjoy a game of Russian roulette would anticipate receiving, the financial rewards would be substantial. But I would hazard such a risk would be too steep for most. While it would be the faster route to a sustainable biosphere, a great idea that can’t be implemented is not ultimately as good as a fair one that can. Although it would take eight global election cycles with favourable votes to bring the population down to the desirable level, I believe this could nonetheless happen because, after each four-year cycle, people would likely be finding the additional income generated by the first election in need of replenishing, and be ready to once again vote in favour of this initiative.
Of course, we’re talking in global terms here, and elections are currently confined to the level of nation states, and by no means all of them at that. But we have to start somewhere – a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step, and all that. No doubt after one democracy successfully demonstrates the idea, others will follow suit, and the idea’s success may well stir the world’s autocracies to take their first small steps toward individual representation. Admittedly, if they had a tight enough lock on their populations, they could simply enact the lottery without the fuss of voting, but one can hope. Either way it will be a win for the biosphere.
Here in Canada, I believe the idea would be a winner for anyone interested in starting a new political party. It’s virtually inconceivable at this point that a new party, with this as their central plank, would earn fewer votes than the current incumbents in the next election, and it would be nice to see Canada leading in some positive way for a change.
I dont know in what kind of strange, parallel reality you live where people would voluntarily implement a system that benefits the greater good through ultimate personal sacrifice.
Now if you want that to succeed, completely drop the “For the planet” angle and go all in on “Whoever survives gets phat loot”. That might work. Oh and make sure that anyone wealthy enough can buy his or her way out of the lottery, so only the poor die en masse.
And wow, suddenly it looks pretty much like our current system, eh?
I don’t think anyone really does stuff for the greater good, but while half the population* will openly admit that they are acting in their own interests, the other half needs cover, which is what the “it’s for the planet” schtick is for. The plan will work because there is no way to avoid risk in this world, and this provides a quantifiable risk/reward scenario. The only question is what level of risk is going to be acceptable enough for enough of the population to vote for it. Here in Canada we regularly get majority governments with about 40% of the popular vote, with a Prime Minister’s Office that has become increasingly powerful over the last 4 to 5 decades. So, it’s not even like we will need everyone to vote for this – 2 out of 5 will do. The remaining 3 of that 5 might not like it, but the social contract requires us to obey laws passed by a system that we have agreed to be governed by.
So, yes, pretty much like our current system!
*Based on US vote counts…
https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/wealthy-people-climate-change-energy-consumption/
I can’t find article I like to find , just reflexively reacting to 9 billion figure. Because it seems yeah, eat the rich (and their ideals )is only way to go but .. in a sense WE are rich …
so making humans actually less shortsightened and manipulative from earliest ages and breaking all those decades and centuries of trauma sound like good idea to try .. just i have no (scalable) idea HOW.
https://theconversation.com/emissions-inequality-there-is-a-gulf-between-global-rich-and-poor-113804
ah, graphs! I do not think living where and how I live still makes me “not a problem”, but something much much bigger must happen for making any really positive news .. no idea how,considering “traditional” and very much state sponsored ‘useful’ xenifobia/militarizm etc … wery uphill, and most humans not want their life to be endless battle with blurred goal (but end up there anyway …)
While I agree that Trump is not really the problem, but is merely a symptom, I disagree that the problem is a political system that rewards people with massive power and influence.
It’s more of a technical disagreement than an actual disagreement of the general principle.
I would point to the recently released Jonathan Pie rant on YouTube. Harris failed to address the problems with policies that the common person could understand.
A difficult task for anyone, but one that I consider is at the core on the problems arising in Western democracies. The inability of the political elite to enable effective policies that benefit the people.
OTOH: “of the people, by the people, for the people” describes perfectly the end state we see today if framed as, of the uneducated, by the uneducated, for the uneducated; or words to that effect.
I think the main problem is that no sane leader can tell the electorate truthfully that things will get better for them, since all thinking people know we are fucked.
Populists like Trump though can tell you comforting lies all day long and blame convenient scapegoats to boot.
Well, first off, Jonathan Pye rocks. We’ve been watching him for years. Stephen Colbert could have morphed into someone so cutting, if only he hadn’t been neutered by his CBS overlords.
But. While I completely agree that Harris screwed the pooch on the campaign front—and more substantively, given her record on environment, Gaza, and the whole jackboot front, she simply wasn’t a good candidate—Trump was just so clearly an apocalyptic candidate that the Democrats should have been able to pull off a win even if they’d been campaigning for a meadow vole. The Dems did a terrible job of making their case, but IMO they shouldn’t have even had to make a case; the prospect of the alternative should have been compelling for anyone with an IQ on the high side of room temperature.
The humanist in me agrees with you.
The cognitive behavioural therapist side would point out a couple of facts:
Unironically, as Thomas Jefferson said, “the government you elect is the one you deserve,” seems appropriate mike drop.
Harris failed because ‘I am not Trump’ is not a viable long term political strategy. At some point you have articulate how you will make their lives better. She failed to do this
By this point I reckon a total and irrevocable societal collapse is one of the better fates for humanity, compared to the hyperstratified, hypersurveiled waking nightmare any technically advanced polity will be in 50 years’ time.
Which I suppose makes Trump the better candidate than Harris.
Huh.
I think it depends on the kind of societal break down we have. I do not believe that the slow decline and simplification of past societies is a good guide. When 90%+ of people are small farmers and collapse is limited a tiny number of urban centres, then it’s possible for society to collapse and for your typical peasant to not even notice – except that the tax man hasn’t shown up.
Now, we are talking about the destruction of agricultural resources that billions depend on. My money is on a post collapse society of cannibalistic hunter-gatherers.
Our lives, especially in developed nations, are so comfortable and structured it’s almost impossible to imagine this scenario being more than a hypothetical SF informed vision of a possible but not really going to happen apocalyptic future. But I don’t see how it won’t in fact happen like this. We’ve never been here before, with this many people supported by systems sustained by a non-renewable resource that is consumed in quantities that increase every year despite all the save-the-environmental initiatives (or perhaps because of them, as they seem to lend a false sense that something meaningful is being done).
Climate changes and a decline in oil production combined with an increasing population seems like a great recipe for abrupt, catastrophic collapse. I’m still only about 5% of the way into Brooks’ book, so maybe I’ll have to change my views when I’m done, but right now my only question is whether or not I’ll be alive when it inevitably happens.
Cannibalism doesn’t seem like it could sustain a population long-term. Most of humanity will be dead by the first century, so human won’t even be a secondary food source unless the goal is to wipe us all out. (If you are, I can’t blame you.)
I reckon we’ll go down to a sextuple-digit population from mass starvation as the loss of all global infrastructure finishes off the last of civilization, then some scattered enclaves of pre-industrial subsistence farmers will claw themselves together in the areas of arable land in the far north.
Hell, we might even retain enough knowledge and salvage enough materials to throw together some wind turbines, a power grid, and something resembling modern amenities.
Or we won’t.
Not like I’ll be around to see it.
Cannibalism is only an intermediate solution, true, which why I also said they would be hunter-gatherers as well. Cannibalism will be required because as our mono culture agriculture starts to fail there simply won’t be enough food for the starving billions. We’ve eliminated most wild animals, most fish, after people eat their pets where will their source of protein come from?
I don’t know what you mean by retain knowledge. How? Out tech depends on stable urban population that can supply teachers and academics. You can’t just memorise all of physics and chemistry and pass it along as stories via some oral culture.
More to the point, where will the resources to build this new world come from? We’ve used up all the easily accessible ones. Even modern copper and tin ores are so low yield that you need 20th century technology to make bronze.
Trust me, I know that our natural resource stocks are inaccessible. By “salvage materials” I literally mean taking existing tech apart for scrap metal. Not saying anything cobbled together from stolen steel and copper wiring will be particularly efficient, but it’s better than nothing and there’s going to be a lot more derelict infrastructure than people to loot it once the dust settles.
As for “retaining knowledge”, I wasn’t referring to oral tradition (though the broad strokes of germ theory et.al. will probably survive). I’m picturing an organized group hoarding texts and educating professionals in survival skills (So they can train apprentices… information will still be lost to the Chinese Telephone effect, but it’ll be slower) before the collapse, then fucking off somewhere safe . Retaining the capacity to build modern tech is a lost cause, but if the collapse isn’t too quick and people see it coming we might be able to at least keep early 19th century engineering know-how.
IDK, maybe that’s still too optimistic, but at least you can see my thought process.
I think you’d be surprised how quickly knowledge gets lost once a particular social order collapses. Maybe if we had an isolated monkdom doing as you suggest now then it could get through a collapse, but such an organisation coming together spontaneously as our agricultural systems collapse seems highly unlikely.
Fair points.
Don’t really have much more to say on the matter, really. The likelihood of a knowledge-hoarding prepper commune springing up early enough to actually achieve its goals is… slim, I’ll admit.
So we’ll probably just revert to small hunter/gatherer groups and possibly pre-industrial pre-metalwork farmsteads (assuming we find a new species of crop), and remain there indefinitely. An unsurprising end to our struggle to escape our natural constraints, but a regrettable one nonetheless.
Eh well. At least I’ll die knowing the solution to the Fermi paradox…
I’ve found that it is not possible to be too cynical.
No more questions. Let’s just listen to music.
Being a misanthrope is odd. People seem to want to equate it with everything evil humans have created. Like I endorse evil somehow.
Just because I think humans are shit, doesn’t mean I want them to suffer.
Also, you annoy a lot of folks who think people are “basically good”.
I’m curious to know how people here see things happening going forward? On the downside, we’re powered (including food production) largely by non-renewable resources, and face a changing climate and growing population. On the upside, we have new energy sources coming online, new technologies for dealing with climate and other problems, and slowing population growth. So, should we be optimistic or pessimistic about the lived situations of humans over the next 100 years?
If optimistic, what will happen to overcome any of our developing energy/climate/population related problems?
If pessimistic, how will problems occur?
Will there be a gradually increasing set of problems? If so, which problems will we notice first, which will become most important and in what ways, and over which time scales?
Or will there be rapid negative shifts and collapses? If so, how will this happen? Having seen what happened from early 2020 to the present day, I think I lack the imagination to predict what will happen first, and how events will cascade.
I envision a “hard step”-style collapse. Where things get only slightly worse over long periods, and the rate of decline is almost flat. Then a sudden shocking drop down to the next tread, then another leveling-off, etc.
There seems to be little reason for optimism. New technologies still either suck, or are not being widely adopted due to powerful lobbying from those making $$$ from old technologies. Global population is declining, but at nowhere near a rate that would make a significant difference. The existing population is consuming resources and contributing to climate change at an accelerated rate. The UN projects a 60% increase in global resource consumption by 2060 (compared to 2020) but only around a 20-25% increase in population numbers.
Supply chains are very vulnerable to even minor crises. Food shortages are likely. Water shortages and diseases might be an even bigger problem. Costs will go up as jobs that pay a living wage continue to go the way of the dodo. Extreme weather is already rendering areas unlivable in the so-called “developed world” – in the “developing world”, it has been doing so for over a decade.
Difficult times will require difficult solutions. Rational, difficult solutions equal political suicide, at least in the free world. Flat-earther, anti-science voices seem to be getting louder. Embittered primitives will continue to reject hard evidence in favor of amygdala-based pandering and conspiracy theories. Even among intelligent, educated folk, decision-making based on hard but necessary choices seems to be getting zero traction.
Revanchist fantasies, based on fictional “ethnic identities” and delusions of a glorious past, will be further exacerbated by all of the above. There might be some silver lining here, as falling and aging populations should lead to a corresponding drop in willing cannon fodder.
If I had to rate potential threats, I’d put 1) disease, 2) drought, and 3) famine in my top three. Pick your fighter.
The “hard-step” version of collapse seems plausible, with stresses cumulating under the surface for a while before reaching a critical mass accompanied by a serious social/physical dislocation. I’m still curious to know what this will look like in specific terms. The increase in non-renewable resource consumption strikes me as an undeniably apocalyptic tangent. Nothing besides fossil fuels, except nuclear for some applications, comes remotely close to meeting our energy needs, with a global population that not only will not, in general, curtail their wants and desires, but actually cannot curtail their dependence on these fuels to meet their basic needs. When easily accessed oil reaches an end, with us relying on increasingly inefficient methods to obtain a decreasing supply, there will be serious global dislocations around food production and transportation. Oil will still be available in the Alberta tar sands and other places, but access to this will be severely restricted by those with the power to do so. Which other problems will be simmering along on the road to this juncture is a question perhaps answered by your two horsemen: plague, and famine and drought. These will of course bring along their companions, strife and death, but how will they play together?
Probably all three will be occurring at the same time to different extents in different places, but the human factor, how we decide they should be dealt with, is the thing I can’t even begin to predict. Take Covid (oh fuck, not this again), for example. You and I have very different perspectives on both the seriousness of the disease, and the way it should have been dealt with, a difference that I think was broadly shared across large populations. Those with your view controlled both the discourse and approach at least for a couple of years, but the fact that the army had to be deployed in Australia, that Ottawa’s core was occupied by semis for three weeks, and Elon Musk felt disturbed enough to switch political parties and buy a major social media company (with the support of a large, undisclosed list of investors) indicates that there is a sizable proportion of people who felt the approach was misguided for one reason or another. Our global response to a disease that was dangerous mostly to those who were not productive resulted in broken supply chains, inflation, and a deepened polarization of democratic populations. It may also be behind our burgeoning drug addiction problems. It also, to my mind, resulted in the world’s richest man having the ear of the leader of the world’s most powerful country. So, while I agree that disease might be a very important aspect in civilizational collapse, I’m not sure exactly what we’re talking about.
A truly devasting plague, one with the transmissibility of Covid, with the incubation period of HIV, and the mortality of Ebola (or HIV in the early 1980s), would probably actually help stabilize things globally for both civilization and the biosphere. Even with the limited lockdowns in Ontario we saw animals venturing into our cities, and with so many people dying, humanity would truly be in it together, and have to pull as one. Supply chains would break, there would be mass starvation, but the threat would be external, in contrast to a physical constraint on the availability of energy, which I think would result in conflict between people who see the other guys as getting more than their share.
But a virus like that is unlikely. Social stresses resulting from differing views on what are reasonable responses to variations on Covid like diseases seem more likely to create the conditions presaging a hard step down, but how would these actually play out? How would the severity of the disease affect the human response, what would the fracture lines be, and how deep? Whatever happens will be informed by previous responses (including our Covid response), but also by the severity of the diseases themselves, which are unknowns.
Will developed nations self-flagellate for climate change and give away the kitchen sink to remediate problems in the poorer nations? Or will we harden our borders? What will we do about all the old people who can’t look after themselves, a problem we are only just seeing the tip of? How long will all the pensions be sustainable? How many people can we import to look after these people, and how much will growing first world populations with their disproportionate consumption of resources hasten increases in climate change and its effects of food supply and migration patterns? What sacrifices are people willing to make? What will they fight for?
I actually think that a plague like the one I mentioned above, that has done the damage before we’re even aware of it, would be the best thing for humans and the biosphere 200 years hence. But I don’t think that will happen. What we’ll have will be increasing human strife over problems of our own making. But I don’t have a feel for which currents will dominate the flow.
“Our global response to a disease that was dangerous mostly to those who were not productive resulted in broken supply chains, inflation, and a deepened polarization of democratic populations.”
If the disease was “dangerous mostly to the non-productive”, how did it impact supply chains?
Picture a disease with a higher (but still far from dramatic) mortality rate than COVID-19, let’s say around 5%. Assume same rate of transmission. Tens of millions dead worldwide. Health systems that almost broke under the burden of COVID would completely collapse under COVID_V2.0. So probably more tens of millions dead due to very sick people not being able to get basic medical help.
Then add on top of that amygdala-driven Covidiots_V2.0 (likely spurred on by malicious external factors) rioting in the streets and destroying stuff, paralyzing traffic, harassing and beating up people. Maybe in this COVID_V.2.0 they’re not content with busting homeless kitchens and actually start killing people? Army in the streets, except this time round they’re not shooting tear gas and rubber bullets.
Supply chains, already strained by workforce losses, stop completely. Conspiracy fantasists (again, potentially mobilized by bad actors) start destroying critical infrastructure, because 5G antennas/data warehouses/coffee makers are “spreading the disease”. They threaten first responders and other medical workers, making it harder to hire in these crucial job positions. Long COVID_V2.0 puts millions out of the workforce. Some permanently, most temporarily – in the short run, it doesn’t matter.
With every turn, prices go up, vital services are harder to come by, and more people die. The virus itself is unlikely to cause complete social collapse, no matter its “severity”. If COVID has taught us anything, it’s that you’ll always find fools ready to downplay millions of dead as “acceptable losses”. The developed world went through social crisis and mass death in spite of abundant food supply, uninterrupted energy flow, and safe water supplies. That’s why I put “disease” in my number one spot.
“If the disease was ‘dangerous mostly to the non-productive’, how did it impact supply chains?”
Supply chains were broken because of shut-downs in China, North America, and elsewhere, to protect those at risk from a highly transmissible disease (mostly the elderly) from contracting the disease from others, in particular the largely physically unaffected working population. In Canada, the concern was that already overburdened hospitals would be overwhelmed.
I agree that medical issues will increasingly cause social disruptions in the first world, given our aging populations, increasing technical ability to keep people alive, and limited resources. I wouldn’t personally describe those affected by social actions over which they have no control, including the distribution of resources, as idiots, but I won’t minimize the disruption they may cause, either.
“Supply chains were broken because of shut-downs in China, North America, and elsewhere, to protect those at risk from a highly transmissible disease (mostly the elderly) from contracting the disease from others, in particular the largely physically unaffected working population.”
I haven’t really seen data granular enough to conclude what was the main cause of supply chain breakage. But about a third of the US population had COVID (and that’s with some form of restrictions in most places), so the “largely unaffected working population” claim doesn’t really hold water, IMO. It’s not reasonable to assume that the 106M ‘Muricans who got sick were all frail and elderly.
Old folks were also less likely to have long COVID than middle-aged types who were (presumably) part of the workforce.
A study comparing the potential loss of productivity due to shutdowns with the potential loss of productivity due to death and incapacitation (e.g. labor hours lost in a scenario without shutdowns) would be a good start. But I don’t think such an analysis is forthcoming. Pity, as it might be useful for future contingency planning.
That would be a really useful analysis. I would venture that a very large proportion of the working population who had Covid would have been able to continue working, especially if they didn’t have paid sick days. I was certainly able to, but I realize my sample of one may not be representative of the North American work force. It would be nice to have some data to bolster my view or shut me up…
Humans have crossed six of nine planetary boundaries. How can any serious person be optimistic about that? I don’t think the ‘technologies for dealing with climate’ you mention are adequate or scalable in any meaningful timeframe. I know huge advances in renewables have been made, nonetheless we keep ratcheting up our demand for more energy. Made worse now by AI server farms. I think we evolved to grab as much energy as we can while we can so restricting ourselves runs counter to our programming. Energy makes life nice. More energy makes life nicer. So good luck with getting people to voluntarily draw down their energy usage. Of course there are always exceptions and outliers such as our host. Also, I’m pretty sure planetary systems are way more complex than our puny brains can comprehend. Shalmaneser to the rescue!
Even though the rate of population growth is declining, population growth overall is increasing and is expected to top out around 10-12 billion then decline. That’s a lot of mammals to feed. Not to mention the concomitant metabolic waste products. And at what cost? I’m not okay with wiping out entire branches of life.
I guess you can tell by my comments I trend more pessimistic although I prefer the term realist. How will problems occur? I’d say the same way a car or a human body falls apart. Little by little, it keeps going until it can’t. It’s spare parts and pills then lights out.
It’s probably better to be optimistic and wrong than pessimistic and right. I probably need to be sent to a re-education camp for an attitude adjustment. The sign leading into the camp will say “Happiness is mandatory.”
And I guess I could always stop reading Rifters and start watching more cat videos.
On the plus side, having a Republican in office will suddenly bring back a degree of moral clarity for Democrats, who will rediscover that climate action is urgent and important, genocides are bad, etc.
True. Too bad they’ll be utterly powerless to act on it.
In fact, my guess is that they’ll be more than happy to ditch any newfound moral clarity in pursuit of getting some of that power back.
Eh, I am always late to the discussion.
Disappointed about your bad taste. Cmon, Hitler, apocalyptic bla-bla-blah. Are you writer of what? Can’t be so stereotypical.
You might be interested to know that here, in Russia, we have a surge of anti-utopias. Of course not of climate / biological type, mostly indirect way to talk about war, tyranny and sometimes China. Also old anti-utopias are bestsellers for 3 years, with 1984 proudly on the first place. No hope police there (although I don’t it in western sci-fi / fantasy too, despite your constant complaints, maybe I am looking at wrong places).
I’m not sure which Ocean you’re being now. Are you the Ocean of last January who had the unwontedly rosy outlook on the future (informed by, among other things, an abysmally poor grasp of ecological energetics and fisheries biology), or the Ocean of just this past June who, in an uncharacteristic moment of honesty, suggested that “our dictator may initiate global nuclear war”?
Whatever your handlers are paying you, though, it’s probably too much. They’d have been hoping for an actual argument: what they got was a haphazard grab-bag of context-free keywords with “stereotypical” tacked on the end, followed by some weird-ass digression into Russian “anti-utopias” that no one was talking about anyway.
Thanks for playing.