The change from global warming to climate change was nothing more than altering the terminology. It was a PR thing more than anything: scientists felt that calling it climate change was more specific to the condition of the planet, as it were.
The world is about to drown in abundance
- Thread starter UCFEE
- Start date
There is PLENTY of other science to be done beyond global warming study. Scientists are not going to be out of work if suddenly global warming research had to come to a halt and other areas of study could be funded. On the other hand, which industries (which are TOO LAZY AND AFRAID OF SHORT TERM LOSSES TO ADAPT) will become obsolete once it becomes widely accepted that what their industry does will have damning effects on the lives of people in the future? Who has the incentive here to dupe the public? Who has the MONEY to spend to dupe the public? Who's institutional shareholders have done the analysis to determine if it would be more profitable in the short term to either make huge capital investment in cleaner energy or to maintain the status quo (and determined the latter - I know you've got money, are you one of those smart shareholders?)
Last edited:
I don't have "money" the way you are insinuating it. I'm like anyone else who invests a good part of their income, I own stocks and I own 401K's but I hardly have anything that has any influence on anything at those levels. I am smart enough to know that humans do not impact the world like you believe they do. I am also smart enough to accept that this climate change stuff has been going on for millions of years and I'm pretty sure combustion engine was not around during the last ice age.
EE you are the poster child for the liberal movement, you want to scream about income inequality, that catch phrase was started by the occupy fools. There has always been income inequality and there always will be as long as there is free will.
EE you are the poster child for the liberal movement, you want to scream about income inequality, that catch phrase was started by the occupy fools. There has always been income inequality and there always will be as long as there is free will.
Then you're also smart enough to realize that when income inequality reaches a point where wealth creation is not driving strong demand creation, then there's a structural problem with the economy.
If your image of what I think the concern over income equality is is based off a bunch of smelly jobless whiney hippies sitting around doing nothing all day, then you don't understand the real concerns over income inequality... Trying to put every liberal in the same bucket as occupy is as dumb as trying to put every conservative in the same bucket as Jerry Falwell
EE, you make it sound like demand will not exist because there is an wealth gap. Tell me EE, when has lack of weth stopped someone from demanding or purchasing something they could not afford?
"This time it's different" is always wrong. Until it isn't.
The world is on the verge of automating mental tasks as opposed to physical ones. There was upheaval from the industry revolution and there will be from the information one as well. It's not cynical to suggest and it's not being naive, it's recognizing historical patterns and applying them to our current situation. We're in the earliest days of this stuff.
The world is on the verge of automating mental tasks as opposed to physical ones. There was upheaval from the industry revolution and there will be from the information one as well. It's not cynical to suggest and it's not being naive, it's recognizing historical patterns and applying them to our current situation. We're in the earliest days of this stuff.
So the people who think corporations are evil and don't care about workers are saying in the same thread that these same evil corporations are wasting money their producing unneeded product and are wasting even more money by keeping people in their jobs instead of just laying them off.
The hubris. World is a changing PLUS I've got all the answers lol. Y'all are welcome to believe whatever you want. I certainly can't change your opinion. Remember what gets clicks, eyeballs, & ad revenue. Is it sort of plausible or is it total ****ing bullshit?
The next guy who is like: "shit is about to get real" & nails it will be the first save a Taleb or similar which aside from Boston, our billionaire commodities expert who knows gold is headed to infinity & beyond any day now, I doubt NT or similar gets his ideas from silly borderline click bait WSJ (tho a touch better than CNBC click bait financial porn) articles doing exactly what most financial porn does distract people.
Keep on keepin on, remembering Armageddon is just around the corner. Just like it was on the 50s, 60s, 70s etc. BUT this time we know it's coming
The next guy who is like: "shit is about to get real" & nails it will be the first save a Taleb or similar which aside from Boston, our billionaire commodities expert who knows gold is headed to infinity & beyond any day now, I doubt NT or similar gets his ideas from silly borderline click bait WSJ (tho a touch better than CNBC click bait financial porn) articles doing exactly what most financial porn does distract people.
Keep on keepin on, remembering Armageddon is just around the corner. Just like it was on the 50s, 60s, 70s etc. BUT this time we know it's coming
anon_x731qvsnsyb8i
Diamond Knight
Well, (shrug), it's either that or having another Enron, or a bunch of them at once...taking your "virtual securities". Guvment can't take without offering fair compensation to land-owners in imminent domain issues so at least you have that...again, land won't go away unless we get a communist or fascist government in control (we are, however, moving towards a socio-fascist hybrid of such so I guess it really doesn't matter). By that time I will be out of dodge.
Well the good thing is in 2.3 to 6 years I will retire and let you guys figure out how to work and eat. I will just eat..
I'll save you some time. Money follows smart people. You can change the rules however you like but it will always find its way home.
anon_x731qvsnsyb8i
Diamond Knight
ALL incorporated entities, including Government, are susceptible to corruption and nefarious intent.
The two are the same now...it boggles my mind that people condemn the money line and origin of lobbyist funds, but not the recipient and yet count on the recipient to enforce laws and regulate our civil freedoms. I don't know how this imaginary boundary came into existence. How can you hate corporations, but not the biggest one of them all???
I'm still not sure who here hates corporations.... but I've always thought that if you were to take a cross section of any organization in society (minus certain extremist groups), you'll find the same kinds of people in the same proportions as the general population.. Smart ones, dumb ones, "evil" ones (ie people that want for themselves consequences to anyone else be damned), good ones...
So I'm not going to say that any large entity (governments or corporations) are wholly evil or wholly good. Those entities are both full of people with different agendas and different viewpoints.
anon_x731qvsnsyb8i
Diamond Knight
Actually, I agree with this statement. It's the people within, you are right. The corp is an idea...it is not "alive". It is the players involved. Exactly. They both (gov and corp) are hierarchical and susceptible to a culture...my point was that our government is directly run by these corps and the dollar flows to influence votes quite easily. So if there is a well-known, well documented collusion, then how can people slam one...but not the other? We don't trust "evil corps"...but hey! "We trust the guvment to always do what's best for society!!!" albeit being those running it are funded by those other nefarious entities.
It's like they are trying to do "good things" with civil rights (things I agree with 100% for record) but to ME, it seems like a cover..."Let's do a bunch of good things for people...like promise equality...meanwhile we'll do some OTHER things behind the scenes to take MORE control, they won't care, they got their equality..."
No one has the answers, some people just have guesses. The only thing that is just about universally agreed upon is that massive structural changes to our economy are developing.
The debate isn't around if this is happening, it's more about when. Legislation and legal issues alone are enough to drag things out for decades.
Deep learning algorithms aren't just about automating cars and eliminating low end jobs like taxi driving, which is typically the most popular/current example. They're more about eliminating high paid engineering jobs that most consider to be 'safe'. Why have a human design a bridge for a specific location when the computer's design is 10x more structurally sound? Human creativity is more or less trial and error, and if it can be automated to happen a million times a second and evaluated in the same, then.. heh.
Combine deep learning with rapid advances being made in biotech, and you have less opportunities for work while at the same time living longer.
Something will replace idle time, of course, and new tasks and job roles will develop. What that looks like though, and whether or not any currently conceived economic system is a fit, is anyone's guess.
Experiments around basic income might be a way forward, but most find it counter intuitive, and counter intuitive is a really tough sell in the states.
The debate isn't around if this is happening, it's more about when. Legislation and legal issues alone are enough to drag things out for decades.
Deep learning algorithms aren't just about automating cars and eliminating low end jobs like taxi driving, which is typically the most popular/current example. They're more about eliminating high paid engineering jobs that most consider to be 'safe'. Why have a human design a bridge for a specific location when the computer's design is 10x more structurally sound? Human creativity is more or less trial and error, and if it can be automated to happen a million times a second and evaluated in the same, then.. heh.
Combine deep learning with rapid advances being made in biotech, and you have less opportunities for work while at the same time living longer.
Something will replace idle time, of course, and new tasks and job roles will develop. What that looks like though, and whether or not any currently conceived economic system is a fit, is anyone's guess.
Experiments around basic income might be a way forward, but most find it counter intuitive, and counter intuitive is a really tough sell in the states.
Well put. Important that more people understand this so that smart business and social policy decisions can be made going forward. Life should get easier for most unless we constrain ourselves in a way to make it harder.
Since we are moving to cultural armageddon, can somebody tell me how the 3 sea shells work? I am not doing it right, I am sure.
Baltimore is burning because there are idiots out there that will take advantage of situations. There will always be poor people and there will always be rich people because until there is a law that forces people to work there will always be freedom of choice not to work.
You need to do your part, hypocrite. Instead of spending all of your money on jiz covered delicacies and traveling the globe, send it to the poor, non-working Americans who have simply been dealt a bad hand.
You're still oblivious. "Freedom of choice not to work?" Seriously? There aren't any jobs in these cities for people to work. They've all been shipped off to India, China, and other third-world dictatorships.
The problem arises from the growth of the lower class since the Reagan era. We destroyed our working class, and we're paying for it now. It keeps getting worse, but people like you think laziness is the issue.
Cops beating and shooting people, riots and looting, drugs, crime, abject poverty, etc... these are merely symptoms of a much larger problem that a vast majority of people fail to address.
Just imagine the lack of jobs if the minimum wage gets raised to $15... Then we can really watch the world burn.
[QUOTE="chemmie, p
The problem arises from the growth of the lower class since the Reagan era. We destroyed our working class, and we're paying for it now. It keeps getting worse, but people like you think laziness is the issue.
Cops beating and shooting people, riots and looting, drugs, crime, abject poverty, etc... these are merely symptoms of a much larger problem that a vast majority of people fail to address.[/QUOTE]
Are you aware of the fact that Unemployment was 16% when Reagan took office, Inflation was double digit, In many ways the Carter economy was worse than this recession. Yes I worked and lived thru both. The difference then and now, is after 7 years of Reagan the economy was growing gangbusters, not stagnant like today, most Americans were much better off than they were when he took office. This time we took big Govt and dumped money into Big donors pockets. Wall street has boomed, Washington insiders have boomed, The middle and lower middle class payed the price for it.
The average Joe can't pump millions into the Dem or Rep election funds, nor can he like Saudi Arabia dump millions into the Clinton charity which only passes thru 15% to help those it should help. The Washington inside elites don't work for America, they work for those who make them powerful and rich.
The problem arises from the growth of the lower class since the Reagan era. We destroyed our working class, and we're paying for it now. It keeps getting worse, but people like you think laziness is the issue.
Cops beating and shooting people, riots and looting, drugs, crime, abject poverty, etc... these are merely symptoms of a much larger problem that a vast majority of people fail to address.[/QUOTE]
Are you aware of the fact that Unemployment was 16% when Reagan took office, Inflation was double digit, In many ways the Carter economy was worse than this recession. Yes I worked and lived thru both. The difference then and now, is after 7 years of Reagan the economy was growing gangbusters, not stagnant like today, most Americans were much better off than they were when he took office. This time we took big Govt and dumped money into Big donors pockets. Wall street has boomed, Washington insiders have boomed, The middle and lower middle class payed the price for it.
The average Joe can't pump millions into the Dem or Rep election funds, nor can he like Saudi Arabia dump millions into the Clinton charity which only passes thru 15% to help those it should help. The Washington inside elites don't work for America, they work for those who make them powerful and rich.
No it wasn't. In fact, it was less than half that number.
You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
I wonder if chemmie ever wonders why the largest amount of black poverty and unrest occurs in cities that are perpetually governed by liberals, and in states that are typically always governed by liberals?
Decades of liberal re-distributive policy yet chronic poverty still exists, and yet chemmie wants us all to believe that this is in fact due to "ring wing" policies that in fact do not exist in any of these cities or states where black poverty is rampant.
This is like crying about liberal policies being responsible for the problems in Dallas, Texas.
Decades of liberal re-distributive policy yet chronic poverty still exists, and yet chemmie wants us all to believe that this is in fact due to "ring wing" policies that in fact do not exist in any of these cities or states where black poverty is rampant.
This is like crying about liberal policies being responsible for the problems in Dallas, Texas.
1. Black, or liberal, politicians aren't immune to greed, corruption, and poor policy.
2. You seem to overstate the influence of local politicians over larger economic matters that have an effect on the communities. This isn't an honest position to take.
And you don't seem to realize that the black poverty in these liberal cities is nothing new. It's been extremely high for a long time, even well before those dreaded Chinese and Indians decided they wanted jobs too and the "global economy" took shape. It's been shown that globalization and movement of jobs has actually hurt middle income white families that hardest.
These states and cities are taxing those evil rich people to death, yet they still can't re-distribute their way out of rampant black poverty that exists in their cities.
Did you really just say that?
Black poverty is present in cities governed by both liberals and conservates. The problem with poverty is rooted in the fact that for decades black men were abused and dehumanized. This left a void in many cities where male leaders are few and far between, and we're still stuck in a cycle of having kids that grow up without men that can show them that hard work and social contribution can lead them to success....
Now, we still don't have enough male leaders willing to go in to impoverished neighborhoods to guide youth, and we're approaching a point where "hard work" alone isn't going to be strongly correlated to a minimum living standard.... The shift in how to think about the economy is going to have to be huge, but not many people have the mental flexibility to make that shift.
Honestly, listening to your opinion on race relations is hard to do, considering how badly you botched your response to the Kevin Smith arrest. You went straight for the "this is another example of racism in America!" before even trying to understand what happened. Like, Smith being involved in a crash with a suspended license and fleeing the scene, then refusing to sign a ticket.
and you think the context of Kevin's situation was irrelevant? You think he acted out of character because <what> and it had nothing to do with the recent uptick In reported police killings of black men?
I think you have trouble listening to my view on race relations because you are convinced all the problems are a result of the welfare state, and as soon as govetnment support goes away suddenly droves of black men and teens are going to suddenly become productive members of society. If you go in to the neighborhoods where poverty is high, leaders are low and mom's are exasperated you'll get a different perspective.
lol
It's quite clear that Smith tried to leverage all of the "racism!" outcries to get out of his own troubles that he was 100% responsible for. He was then caught lying and using the racism card, at which point he had to issue an apology.
you're getting really desperate to justify your jump to conclusions on that one.
The conclusion that there's a perception problem when it comes to race and police isn't wrong. It's pretty damn obvious in what we're seeing across the country. You're not going to convince me that the racism rant Smith posted was just an attempt to weasel out of trouble and independent of reports of police killing black people. That's not in line with the character person we know Kevin Smith to be.
That being said, you're desperate to avoid talking about the larger issue by trying to discredit my views on race based on one conversation about one incident. Irony.
I love the suburban upper middle class guys in the WC telling us about the lives of black kids in inner city neighborhoods.
I go in to Denver's worst neighborhood on a regular basis to mentor two brothers who's dad was murdered right in front of them when they were 4 and 6. I'll tell you there isn't one other male influence in their life to provide a perspective other than what they'd hear within their neighborhood.
There's no leadership, and there's not anywhere near enough men willing to take the time to get in there and provide leadership... But there sure seems to be enough time to sit back and get angry and gripe.
