Just 5 years left to stop climate change

[Human No More]

Originally Posted by taylorcraftbc65

The fact still remains, however, that people are trying to sneak OUT of Cuba, and INTO this "bad capitalist" country. As a matter of fact, I think that is one of a very few, if not the only "end destination" Countries that people try to sneak INTO for a shot at a better life.

Western europe and the United Kingdom are too; but yes, even the poorest in north america and europe have better quality of life than all but the richest in most other countries.

Under the American Capitilist system, my love and I, on only 3.500 dollars a month, own our self build hangerhome on 80 acres, with our own private 4,700 foot runway and the full ownership of two aircraft. Without the technologies that we made use of, or the freedoms of a capitalist system there is no way that we could have achieved the station in life that we did.

Sounds to me like you have the right idea.

Capitalism is not perfect in itself, but it's a lot better than any alternative until humanity reaches a post-scarcity level of development.

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

HNM, you have no idea about who I am or what I believe, do you? What exactly do you think I'm trying to "destroy?"

In terms of progress, nothing, although I do think you are still very attached to symbolism as scapegoats for more complex problems. You're reading a post talking about another view as if it was about yours.

I'm guessing you thought the same thing about people like Ghandi or MLK Jr, who fought against the evils of the systems they lived under?

I wasn't alive during / old enough to see and understand first hand; but no. As far as I understand them, neither of them advocated destruction of what has already happened for destruction's sake, only changes in human behaviour.

I'm fighting corruption and greed. The current system is broken, for people and the planet, it needs to change. I've found something worth fighting for, but apparently you just see me as some sort of saber rattler? Am I hitting anywhere near the mark here? Again, if you seem to think the current system is fine, go see Alternet. There's plenty of independent journalists who would kindly disagree.

I got sick of alternet - some of their articles have good points, but others are just thinly veiled communist screeds. There's a place for some of what they post, but the site tends to become a dumping ground for 'anything non-mainstream goes here'.

Saying something is broken is useless unless you have something better, or a plan to change it, not just going 'this doesn't work lol'. The truth is that the current 'system' (loath as I am to use such a description because there is no ONE, but interaction of millions) does work on many levels, and attempts at imposing engineered ones have failed miserably. Things need to change from the ground up, not to have something imposed top-down, communist style.

Yes, humans have always had an impact on nature, as all species do, but it was never some sort of full-scale technological overhaul of it that some seem to advocate. Again, I have no problem with technology, but humanity should keep its impact on the natural world to a minimum, not try to overhaul the entire biosphere with it, and definitely not attempt to push it on aboriginal people's. There's a line of acceptability of impact, and that would cross it.

...isn't that what I just said in my previous post?
The part of my post talking about destruction of hard-won knowledge and progress was not even aimed at you in the first place. You are more sensible than that, even if your politics tend to the unrealistic.

Oh, and advanced or not, 7 billion people is unsustainable. We gotta bring that number down. Period. Either way, I agree.

Did I ever say anything else there?

I guess a TL;DR is that it is humanity that should make the move and progress, not nature, nature is just fine as it is. Humanity must make the change, and find environmentally friendly technologies that work in better harmony with nature (along with good old fashioned conservation less consumption) as she is. That, IMO, was JC's message, not the other way around. Anthropocentrism is what got us here in the first place, we need to broaden our horizons and think about our effect on nature with our actions.

Isn't that exactly what I said? That the solution is improvement, and not destruction, not upheaval for upheaval's sake. You seem to be convinced that I was talking about your idea when I never was, since yours is actually much closer to what I said.

HNM, I have no idea where you got this anti-tech opinion of me from, but you are way. ****ing. off. Change it, bud. And I don't know why it's bad that I'm fighting the corporate oligarchy?

Again, that wasn't related to your post. You aren't 'fighting a corporate oligarchy', you're pinning problems on strawmen because they're easier to confront than to actually propose anything different. It's extremely easy to go 'change this', but that tends to fall down when asked what you'd do differently.

[Tsyal Makto]

Originally Posted by Human No More

I wasn't alive during / old enough to see and understand first hand; but no. As far as I understand them, neither of them advocated destruction of what has already happened for destruction's sake, only changes in human behaviour.

As do modern progressive political movements. Nobody is advocating "destruction" of anything. Sure, there's always violent rabble-rousers in any crowd (in fact, in a lot of cases they are plants to attempt to sully a movements image, remember the right winger who was trying to give out drug paraphernalia to OWS protestors?), but all movements as a whole advocate nonviolent resistance, and actually have a good road map toward change (OWS, for example, advocates publicly funded elections, the recovery of New Deal programs, and the like. See? Small changes to help move the current system toward something completely different in the future, something greener and more democratic).

Maybe it's because people have become so desensitized to political resistance in modern times, that anytime a group takes to the streets or practices nonviolent resistance, it is seen as an attempt at violent destruction.

I got sick of alternet - some of their articles have good points, but others are just thinly veiled communist screeds. There's a place for some of what they post, but the site tends to become a dumping ground for 'anything non-mainstream goes here'.

Progressivism =/= communism. In fact, they are pretty antithetical to each other. To call progressives/liberals/those to the left of center "communists" is a strawman in and of itself.

Saying something is broken is useless unless you have something better, or a plan to change it, not just going 'this doesn't work lol'. The truth is that the current 'system' (loath as I am to use such a description because there is no ONE, but interaction of millions) does work on many levels, and attempts at imposing engineered ones have failed miserably. Things need to change from the ground up, not to have something imposed top-down, communist style.

Today's political movements are trying to bring change from the ground-up. Regardless of what the media says, today's progressive movements are grass roots, from the ground up. If you really want an example of a top-down movement, it's actually the Tea Party, which was chockablock with corporate funding, in fact, most could be tracked back to a set of brothers.

[Niri Te]

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

(OWS, for example, advocates publicly funded elections, the recovery of New Deal programs, and the like. See? Small changes to help move the current system toward something completely different in the future, something greener and more democratic).

The "New Deal" programs instituted by FDR are ENORMOUSLY expensive, and this Country just so happens to be almost BANKRUPT, and definitely Financially impoverished in large part because of all of the "Social Programs" many of which are being over utilized by a large group of people that should NOT have access to them.
If we add even MORE "give away" programs to the budget, this Country will be BROKE within five years.
You could take ALL the money away from ALL the millionaires, stick it in the Treasury, and in VERY short order, it will be GONE given our current rate of expenditure.
Long before that happens, the "rich" will have left the Country, moved their manufacturing overseas, GUTTING the number of available jobs, and this Country will have all the political, monetary, and defensive clout of Ceylon.
I am sure glad that at almost 62, I won't be around to see what this Country that I pledged my life's Blood to defend winds up becoming.
Niri Te

[Tsyal Makto]

Originally Posted by taylorcraftbc65

The "New Deal" programs instituted by FDR are ENORMOUSLY expensive, and this Country just so happens to be almost BANKRUPT, and definitely Financially impoverished in large part because of all of the "Social Programs" many of which are being over utilized by a large group of people that should NOT have access to them.
If we add even MORE "give away" programs to the budget, this Country will be BROKE within five years.
You could take ALL the money away from ALL the millionaires, stick it in the Treasury, and in VERY short order, it will be GONE given our current rate of expenditure.
Long before that happens, the "rich" will have left the Country, moved their manufacturing overseas, GUTTING the number of available jobs, and this Country will have all the political, monetary, and defensive clout of Ceylon.
I am sure glad that at almost 62, I won't be around to see what this Country that I pledged my life's Blood to defend winds up becoming.
Niri Te

I don't think it's the social programs that are the problem. Europe has had an even more robust social safety net programs than the US, and they were fine. The problems in Europe are more about mismanagement of the Euro, not social programs, just like most of our problems can be traced back to the Fed mismanaging the dollar.

The problem is that since the 1980s, we've been neglecting the demand-side of the supply-demand equation. We've fallen into the idea that throwing all the benefits and tax-cuts at the rich will lead to "job creation." Hell, even Grover Norquist, the GOP tax-cut zealot only views tax increases on rich as actual tax increases. He neglects taxes that effect working people, like the payroll tax, and only concerns himself with taxes that really effect the rich, like capital gains. Not to mention all the talk about uncertainty. All the concerns about "uncertainty" seem to be toward the rich, nobody seems to talk about the uncertainty felt by consumers in the middle/working class. Supply is doing just fine, the stock market is as profitable as ever, it is the demand-side that needs the leg-up to feel enough certainty again to buy and invest, and such is the need for a strong safety net. No amount of tax cuts or austerity can fix the debt crisis, we must restart the supply-demand engine before anything else, and real, sustained revenue can be generated. For example, a dollar of food stamps leads to more than a dollar in return. In reality, the working class are just as much "job creators" as the GOP claims the wealthy to be, most likely even moreso, but they need help.

Yes, the government is wasteful, but the problem is more in defense than in social programs. We are attempting to both maintain R&D as well as be at war. This is unprecedented. Normally during war, R&D stops, and is a peacetime activity. To attempt to do both has lead to unprecedented defense costs, much of which is wasted in failed R&D projects like the F-22 Raptor.

[Raptor]

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

Yes, the government is wasteful, but the problem is more in defense than in social programs. We are attempting to both maintain R&D as well as be at war. This is unprecedented. Normally during war, R&D stops, and is a peacetime activity. To attempt to do both has lead to unprecedented defense costs, much of which is wasted in failed R&D projects like the F-22 Raptor.

This is me nitpicking and being off topic. Yes, the military and its budget is responsible for many sins, but the F-22 isn't one of them. Without going into technical details, the project isn't failed by any means, and successful aviation programs had to mature just like the F-22 is doing so right now. It's simply curtailed because we don't have the need for such a sophisticated aircraft in our current situation. When you pour lots of R&D costs into relatively few airframes, your per-unit price is bound to go up.

That said, I do support reducing the defense budget, and I feel that the half trillion dollar cut over the next 10 years is a good move if done wisely (i.e. not overcutting).