The Existential thread

[HomeInMyShoes]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

My wife and I are expecting and in light of everything that’s going on I feel an added sense of fear and hopelessness for the future. From selfish and ignorant politicians pushing to claw back carbon pricing and any meaningful action on Climate Change, to alleged sexual predators potentially being seated in the highest courts, things feel pretty bleak. Populism is rearing its ugly head and bullies and assholes everywhere are coming out of the woodwork to spew hatred and bigotry.

On the one hand I’m so excited for the birth of my child and on the other I fear for the future.

Anyone else feel the same?

Every single day. I have two kids.

Congratulations O-tacular. I wish you as much joy as I've had and more. Just remember that everything is a phase. Things shift, they change, suck up all of it.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by someone123

Does a shift to the right look the same on both sides of the border though?

We keep hearing about how Doug Ford is like a northern Trump, etc. Where's Doug Ford's "build a wall" or Muslim immigration ban?

“I’m a huge supporter of new Canadians. I’m a huge supporter of new immigrants coming to this country … They call me up — I give (my personal cellphone number) to all new Canadians — I give it to everyone actually. They say, ‘I have credentials in another country, Doug, but they aren’t recognized here.’ So we’re going to speed that process up.
https://toronto.citynews.ca/2018/05/...d-immigration/

This quote suggests that he sometimes talks in a disjointed way similar to Trump and I don't doubt that they may have comparable mental wattage but are the policies truly similar, or do they both just happen to be on the "right" end of two different Overton windows?

Maybe not on immigration (Canadian politicians are much more adept at sucking up to micro-targetted groups for votes) but on the climate DoFo and Trump are aligned.

Think about Ford and those who voted Wynne and her "expensive" environmental policies basically said a couple hundred bucks a year was too much to spend to save the environment. This is what will doom mankind. Not being willing or able to comprehend the magnitude of the damage being done to the planet and thinking the fixes should be cheap.

I missed seeing Anthropocene at the film festival, I hope it gets a wider release:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44RYqgKwfSQ

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by HomeInMyShoes

Every single day. I have two kids.

Congratulations O-tacular. I wish you as much joy as I've had and more. Just remember that everything is a phase. Things shift, they change, suck up all of it.

Glad to hear I'm not alone with my concerns. Thanks for the well wishes.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Maybe not on immigration (Canadian politicians are much more adept at sucking up to micro-targetted groups for votes) but on the climate DoFo and Trump are aligned.

Think about Ford and those who voted Wynne and her "expensive" environmental policies basically said a couple hundred bucks a year was too much to spend to save the environment. This is what will doom mankind. Not being willing or able to comprehend the magnitude of the damage being done to the planet and thinking the fixes should be cheap.

I missed seeing Anthropocene at the film festival, I hope it gets a wider release:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44RYqgKwfSQ

I watched Andrew Scheer's nauseating political ads last night for the first time. He's on stage at the pulpit preaching about how everything's too expensive and how he will fight for the common man. That's exactly what the argument boils down to about carbon taxes. People want to save nominal amounts of money even if it means fucking the planet for all future generations. It's myopic and selfish and completely insane.

[O-tacular]

Delete

[wave46]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

I watched Andrew Scheer's nauseating political ads last night for the first time. He's on stage at the pulpit preaching about how everything's too expensive and how he will fight for the common man. That's exactly what the argument boils down to about carbon taxes. People want to save nominal amounts of money even if it means fucking the planet for all future generations. It's myopic and selfish and completely insane.

Perhaps.

However, the worst thing we can do as a society would be to silence Scheer. We can disagree with him, we can dislike him, whatever, but we must remain an open society that allows disagreements to occur.

The 'liberal elite' have to resist the temptation to make themselves an 'enlightened' oligarchy of themselves at the cost of the freedom of the citizenry. Authoritarianism often finds a path inwards through appealing to a certain group that 'knows' it is right.

The citizens of all countries must be allowed to make their own mistakes (or right choices) through a democratic process. It is not unlike raising kids - there's a point where you can't tell your kids what to do - they have to make their own mistakes and fix their own messes.

The only true mistake is to take away the ability of the citizens to make their own choice. I'd live my whole life with fairly elected Trumps, Fords and Scheers over a lifetime of appointed Clintons, Trudeaus and Obamas, no matter how much I politically disagree with the first group.

[SignalHillHiker]

Here, O - cheer up.

https://www.theracketonline.com/main...musical-review

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

Here, O - cheer up.

https://www.theracketonline.com/main...musical-review

Thanks.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

I watched Andrew Scheer's nauseating political ads last night for the first time. He's on stage at the pulpit preaching about how everything's too expensive and how he will fight for the common man. That's exactly what the argument boils down to about carbon taxes. People want to save nominal amounts of money even if it means fucking the planet for all future generations. It's myopic and selfish and completely insane.

I wouldn't have described the ad as "nauseating", but it did make me wonder when Canadian voters will smarten up and insist that, when politicians promise they'll give them more money, that the details and costing are provided as well, along with who gets how much (given the Conservative track record of favouring the upper middle class).

[O-tacular]

So, lying frat boy partisan and blackout binge drinker rapist Brett Kavanaugh is going to be appointed after all. Susan Collins can rot in hell.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

I wouldn't have described the ad as "nauseating", but it did make me wonder when Canadian voters will smarten up and insist that, when politicians promise they'll give them more money, that the details and costing are provided as well, along with who gets how much (given the Conservative track record of favouring the upper middle class).

Yeah the generic promises without facts are part and parcel of politics it seems.

[Dr Awesomesauce]

Originally Posted by wave46

Back to the original topic:

O-tacular,

"It was the best of time and it was the worst of times..."

People still had kids and believed in the future in 1942, when Nazism had spread across most of Europe and the Japanese empire had a huge chunk of the Pacific.

People still had kids in the 1950s, when the forces of Communism had spread across Eastern Europe and China and the Soviet Union seemed to leave the West in the dust by launching Sputnik.

People still had kids in the oil crunches, inflationary spirals and stagflation of the 1970s.

This too shall pass.

Indeed, perhaps these times are a catharsis. For the 'liberal order' that previously governed got soft, fat and contented. It forgot about those who had been left behind by the changes of the past 20 years. It isolated itself as part of the elite and became surprisingly tone-deaf to the needs of those who had propelled it to power.

I look forward to the future. I think these times are a necessity. It reminds us of what we stand for in the West and reminds us that perhaps being fat and contented is not the ultimate goal of humanity. Maybe humanity needs a purpose.

That's why I wish you and your family the best. Maybe the next generation will find purpose in correcting our generation's mistakes - that's why we need the next generation.

Enjoy the adventure of raising kids, O-tac. Also, tune out the background noise a bit - social media, news, etc. - and treasure the simple moments of real life.

I agree with everything you've said and I believe it's incumbent upon us to remind those around us just how good we've got it.

However, I'll just point out the obvious point that birth rates are down significantly from a century ago (in the West, that is). We're having fewer children (~1.5) and we're starting much later (~30 years).

There are many reasons for this that we don't need to go over again (eg birth control, women in the workplace, economic prosperity, loss of religion...), but I do wonder how much of it has to do with pessimism about our future. People still had children in the face of Vietnam, nuclear annihilation, environmental pollution, etc., but there's no doubt these shocks significantly contributed to lowering our birth rates. With those issues mostly in the rear view mirror, we've started to make things up to wring our hands over (eg the patriarchy, gender this and that, alt right racists, toxic masculinity...). We should be singing in the streets but alas...

I know many people who don't see our society as fit to bring a child into - what a shame but I suppose it is the destiny of all civilisations to devour themselves. I'd love us to throw caution to the wind, however, and go back in time a little: marry sooner, and have more children. Who knows? This might just make us happier!

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by wave46

Perhaps.

However, the worst thing we can do as a society would be to silence Scheer. We can disagree with him, we can dislike him, whatever, but we must remain an open society that allows disagreements to occur.

The 'liberal elite' have to resist the temptation to make themselves an 'enlightened' oligarchy of themselves at the cost of the freedom of the citizenry. Authoritarianism often finds a path inwards through appealing to a certain group that 'knows' it is right.

The citizens of all countries must be allowed to make their own mistakes (or right choices) through a democratic process. It is not unlike raising kids - there's a point where you can't tell your kids what to do - they have to make their own mistakes and fix their own messes.

The only true mistake is to take away the ability of the citizens to make their own choice. I'd live my whole life with fairly elected Trumps, Fords and Scheers over a lifetime of appointed Clintons, Trudeaus and Obamas, no matter how much I politically disagree with the first group.

Why? Aren't we just giving cover to people who are seriously going to harm the planet?

I found this article kind of chilling. Not sure if it is behind WaPo's paywall or not:

Those who oppose acting on climate change are called deniers, a word that suggests they don’t believe that change is happening, or at least disagree that humans are causing it.

But a recent statement by an arm of the United States government suggests that when so-called captains of industry express disbelief, it’s often feigned. Many who present themselves as deniers likely do believe the climate is becoming unstable, they just don’t care.

As reported in The Washington Post, U.S. President Donald Trump wants to freeze a coming set of fuel-efficiency standards, and a branch of the Department of Transportation was given the task of backing him up. Known as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), it attempted to do so in a preliminary environmental impact statement released in August.

While Mr. Trump often says that climate change is a hoax, the NHTSA didn’t take that position, or even try to minimize the damage. Instead, the agency justified climate inaction by stating that it’s just too late to solve humankind’s biggest problem....

...According to the author Douglas Rushkoff, many of the very rich believe their wealth can protect them, especially if they leave the rest of us behind.

Mr. Rushkoff teaches media theory and digital economics at the City University of New York. In July, he wrote an essay that opened with an anecdoteabout being paid half his annual salary to give a talk on “the future of technology.”

He ended up around a table, he says, with “five super-wealthy guys – yes, all men – from the upper echelon of the hedge-fund world.” The increasingly shocking questions they posed included urgent inquiries into whether New Zealand or Alaska would be safer from rising seas.

They asked him how to control their security staff when money became useless, and mused among themselves whether shock collars would work. Some had already been building bunkers and storing food. ...(bold mine)

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opin...rth/?cmpid=rss

[wave46]

Originally Posted by Dr Awesomesauce

I do wonder how much of it has to do with pessimism about our future. People still had children in the face of Vietnam, nuclear annihilation, environmental pollution, etc., but there's no doubt these shocks significantly contributed to lowering our birth rates. With those issues mostly in the rear view mirror, we've started to make things up to wring our hands over (eg the patriarchy, gender this and that, alt right racists, toxic masculinity...). We should be singing in the streets but alas...

I know many people who don't see our society as fit to bring a child into - what a shame but I suppose it is the destiny of all civilisations to devour themselves. I'd love us to throw caution to the wind, however, and go back in time a little: marry sooner, and have more children. Who knows? This might just make us happier!

This is anecdotal, but I've never encountered anyone who chose not to have children because of the state of the world. Plenty of other reasons, but not that one. They choose to have kids or not have kids for their own personal reasons - it is one of the most intimate decisions two people can make.

However, I see the problem of continuing to grow in population given the finite resources we have. In particular, Africa is poised for a baby boom its governments can ill contend with - in fact, they struggle with existing population. I'd rather have a smaller version of humanity that lives well as opposed to a large one locked in a constant struggle to survive.

Do not take that statement as implicit support for the populating planning that has taken places in societies such as China. I do not condone such action. Ever. The choice to have children should lie with the individuals.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Why? Aren't we just giving cover to people who are seriously going to harm the planet?

I will not sacrifice the freedom of people to choose their own governments under any guise, no matter how noble it may appear on the surface.

It inherently leads to a far more destructive authoritarianism.

[CityTech]

Originally Posted by wave46

I will not sacrifice the freedom of people to choose their own governments under any guise, no matter how noble it may appear on the surface.

It inherently leads to a far more destructive authoritarianism.

As much as I'm pro-democracy, I'm actually starting to learn towards the idea that authoritarianism and repeal of democracy is justifiable to stop climate change. We're trending towards destroying our own civilization because populist politicians get votes for promising to make gas cheaper.

Climate change is a severe, existential threat to human civilization and we're getting to the point where limiting its acceleration is a more important goal than anything else, including freedoms.

[vid]

Originally Posted by wave46

I will not sacrifice the freedom of people to choose their own governments under any guise, no matter how noble it may appear on the surface.

It inherently leads to a far more destructive authoritarianism.

We might kill off our species, but at least we did it democratically!

[lio45]

Originally Posted by CityTech

As much as I'm pro-democracy, I'm actually starting to learn towards the idea that authoritarianism and repeal of democracy is justifiable to stop climate change. We're trending towards destroying our own civilization because populist politicians get votes for promising to make gas cheaper.

Climate change is a severe, existential threat to human civilization and we're getting to the point where limiting its acceleration is a more important goal than anything else, including freedoms.

I've been starting to think the same thing, except that we also need a foreign component to this strategy, forcibly bending China/India/Africa to our choices.

The entirety of Canada could commit Voluntary Human Extinction tomorrow and it would have no impact on the planet, so we might as well continue to live, given that.

[CityTech]

Originally Posted by lio45

I've been starting to think the same thing, except that we also need a foreign component to this strategy, forcibly bending China/India/Africa to our choices.

The entirety of Canada could commit Voluntary Human Extinction tomorrow and it would have no impact on the planet, so we might as well continue to live, given that.

Yes. It has to be global or it's pointless.

Some sort of authoritarian global organization that forcibly imposes caps on carbon emissions on the world's governments, using aggressive penalties up to and including military ones for violators.

Basically if the Paris Agreement had real teeth, with hard emissions caps, harsh penalities ascribed to violators, and an unelected global organization charged with enforcement, complete with a large endowment of funds (so it can finance itself without needing contributions from nation-states), and a military force.

Sounds dystopian? Yes. Absolutely. But I'm not sure we have any other choice.

[milomilo]

Is a world destroyed by global warming really worse than one destroyed by war and dominated by the most powerful? It wouldn't be the first time attempts at domination were made in the name of building a better world.