Global warming fact or fiction? Has it effected when you use your stove?

[Guest Gimlet]

Unfortunately the climate strike is essentially just another anti-capitalism rally. It is motivated by politically zealotry, not environmentalism. I've yet to hear any evidence that anyone from this movement grasps what the problem is, never mind how we might solve it.

 

As far as I can see, this day of activism is another branch of Extinction Rebellion where professional agitators recruit the support of genuinely well-meaning people and use their critical mass to heap blame without offering solutions beyond pushing their own brand of political philosophy. And to cap it all, it's a failed philosophy. 

Mankind is ravaging the planet because we have over-populated it, not because we have failed to build enough wind farms or tax non-doms or master collectivism. This overpopulation has been made possible by industrialisation (which socialism supports - it merely seeks to control the means of production and extend a form of state-approved feudalism through redistributive taxation and spending). 

So it would continue the damaging process of human dominion over the Earth and it's ruthless exploitation but remove the motivation to innovate and find some ameliorative solutions to the worst pathological symptoms of over-population. Since its inception at the end of the nineteenth century, Socialism has never found any solution to anything, anywhere, ever. Its has destroyed much but achieved or created nothing. Applying political fanaticism to environmentalism is a waste of time. 

 

It's true a supranationally enforced global socialism would help to some extent the overpopulation crisis since it would result in the deaths of millions of people, as it has always done in the past, but killing people to reduce the population isn't the way forward. We need to first acknowledge the true problem then tackle its drivers and find mitigating solutions in the interim while nature takes its course over time. 

 

If we want to reverse the terrible damage we are doing to this planet, we first have to confront the cause; understand how that came about; how we can reverse it and how in the intervening two centuries (at least) it would take to restore the human population to a sustainable level, we can off-set or at least pause the atmospheric and climatic damage we have done while at the same time rewriting our social-economic model so we live in the world as part of it, rather than off it like some colonising parasite. Unfortunately I can't see any of this happening. And I'm afraid the adulation of Greta Thunberg, the Scandinavian child leader, is a metaphor for false hope and the inability to comprehend the pathology of our presence in this world.

Edited September 21, 2019 by Gimlet

[Stere]

I think you confusing socialism with communism.

 

Scandi countries are more socialist no mass death yet

 

Nordic model - Wikipedia

EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG

 

Its a continuim not an either or.

 

Socialist ideas are more compatible with eniviromentalism e.g enviro regulation

 

 

Hence why there aren't many right wing enviromentalist movements.

 

A agree thought that many protesters don't really understand fully what they are protesting for and there is  a disconnect between the  radical change they call for in goverment policies,  and them being ready to make the personal changes to there everyday lifestyle, that in reality they most likely wouldn't want too accept.

 

 

 

[tree-fancier123]

1 hour ago, Gimlet said:

And I'm afraid the adulation of Greta Thunberg, the Scandinavian child leader, is a metaphor for false hope and the inability to comprehend the pathology of our presence in this world.

Maybe she's getting ready to morph - soon she'll be recommending mass sterilization in Asia and Africa as the only way forward 'our troops must go in with surgeons and not return until we have filled 50 ro-ro bins with testes and ovaries'

 

The birth rate in England and Wales - measured as a proportion of the total population - hit a new low in 2018, according to the Office for National Statistics.The average number of children born to women, known as the total fertility rate, is also down, to 1.7 - from 1.76 in 2017.

 

As of 2018, the total fertility rate in Sweden was 1.76 children per woman. Among native-born Swedes, it was even lower, at 1.67

 

India's average fertility rate between 2015 and 2020 was 2.3 per woman (not a soft target as they have nukes)

 

The vast majority of the countries in the world with the highest fertility rates are in Africa, with Niger topping the list at 7.153 children per woman, followed by Somalia at 6.123 children per woman. The Democratic Republic of Congo, Mali and Chad follow at 5.963, 5.922 and 5.797 children per woman, respectively.

 

Greta's script (hope she's reading)

'The west should be pointing the finger at Africa and saying right you monkeys this isn't about racism it's about self preservation - we've had enough of you lot rutting away and then coming over and clogging up the wealthy countries, adding to their pollution, taking their land. You Africans and Asians, with your selfish DNA, sensitive genitalia, and basic emotions are making too many of the toxic primates, we can't cope. It's time you started controlling yourselves to prevent causing the world even more misery and suffering than you already have.'

[Haironyourchest]

China = Socialist = world's biggest polluter.

 

Nordic countries: NOT SOCIALIST. They are free market capitalist countries with big nanny government. Not that same thing as socialism. Socialism is when the government owns everything. Look up the definition. Communism is socialism.

[Guest Gimlet]

34 minutes ago, Haironyourchest said:

China = Socialist = world's biggest polluter.

 

Nordic countries: NOT SOCIALIST. They are free market capitalist countries with big nanny government. Not that same thing as socialism. Socialism is when the government owns everything. Look up the definition. Communism is socialism.

Correct.

All the Scandinavian countries are also extremely wealthy with tiny populations. Iceland and Norway are self-sufficient in energy. Norway is per capita the richest country in the world. And they didn't get there by socialism. They got there by selling oil on the open market because they have vast natural resource wealth out of all proportion to their populations. 

They can afford the indulgence of nanny states and high living costs. Transfer the same model to countries with much lower per capita wealth more thinly spread across a large population with a much more varied social spectrum and it exacerbates inequality and social division as the smart, the well-off and the lucky find ways to circumvent state control and the less able, less fortunate and less prosperous become trapped by it.

 

It proves the old adage: only the rich can afford socialism. And that's why it tends to be the rich and feather-bedded who prescribe it for other people while using their wealth to immunise themselves from its effects. 

Edited September 21, 2019 by Gimlet

[trigger_andy]

3 hours ago, Stere said:

I think you confusing socialism with communism.

 

Scandi countries are more socialist no mass death yet

 

Nordic model - Wikipedia

EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG

 

Its a continuim not an either or.

 

Socialist ideas are more compatible with eniviromentalism e.g enviro regulation

 

 

Hence why there aren't many right wing enviromentalist movements.

 

A agree thought that many protesters don't really understand fully what they are protesting for and there is  a disconnect between the  radical change they call for in goverment policies,  and them being ready to make the personal changes to there everyday lifestyle, that in reality they most likely wouldn't want too accept.

 

 

 

As others have stated, you really need to go look up the definitions of communism and socialism as Scandinavian countries are neither. 

[Haironyourchest]

(From Wikipedia).....Marx himself did not use the term socialism to refer to this development, but he rather called it a communist society that has not yet reached its higher-stage....^[1] 

 

The age old problem of definition of terms, sigh...

[Steve Bullman]

That Greta girl, you can certainly tell her parents are actors 

[Guest Gimlet]

Someone's certainly stolen her childhood but I don't think it was world leaders..

[difflock]

48 minutes ago, Steve Bullman said:

That Greta girl, you can certainly tell her parents are actors 

In wor local parlance it ud be "Greeting Greta".

Where greeting is the local colloquialism for crying.

Oops!

I did see somewhere the question asked;

"Have the "we are doomed" anthropological climate change prophets taken the data from say the 1960's and used this data to run their climate prediction models, simply to check out what the results would be for say 2010 to 2015, to verify their accuracy, or not.

Before using these models to predict future climate likelyhoods.

Apparently the answer is no.

Why not?

Edited September 24, 2019 by difflock