"Don't Look Up"

[begreen]

Right we are pigs. But so is everyone else.
Not even close to #1. Add Russia and the rest of Europe together and we’re real close.

Each Country's Share of CO2 Emissions

Which 20 countries emit the most carbon dioxide? You may be surprised.

www.ucsusa.org

Yes, China and India are bad for CO2 emissions, they need to do a lot better, but their populations are huge. Scroll down on that same page and look at the same data from a different perspective, that is the per capita emissions per country. This is old 2018 data, it's gotten worse. Note that this is just one measure of a multipronged problem.



The conclusion they reach is:

"The picture that emerges from these figures is one where—in general—developed countries and major emerging economy nations lead in total carbon dioxide emissions.

However, developed nations typically have high carbon dioxide emissions per capita, while some developing countries lead in the growth rate of carbon dioxide emissions. These uneven contributions to the climate crisis are at the core of the challenges the world community faces in finding effective and equitable solutions to global warming."

 

[Parallax]

I think the problem is predominantly based in one party. The party that is backed by the super wealthy, the Koch brothers being an example. People who are greedy and can never get enough. People who will happily subvert democracy and prevent us from dealing with existential challenges if it helps them hold and acquire wealth.

Why does a society need multi-billionaires? I'll go so far as to say any society that supports and enables such disproportionate wealth is sick. Unfortunately, that very same party has become incredibly skilled at turning groups of challenged people against each other. If working class folks came together with other impoverished groups, things could improve in so many ways. But they're really great at keeping us divided.

The same thing occurred in colonial empires. Consider the way the British maintained power in India. There were hundreds of millions of people ruled by a tiny number of officials and a small military contingent. That was possibly only because the people were divided. Consider also that, prior to colonization, Muslims and Hindus lived together in peace for centuries. In the aftermath of British rule, with decades of discord sewn, India split into two and Pakistan came into existence.

Perhaps something similar will happen here. Perhaps red and blue states will separate at some point. Or perhaps we'll just continue in this dysfuntional way, with one of our political parties essentially a 5th column.

 

[SpaceBus]

I think the problem is predominantly based in one party. The party that is backed by the super wealthy, the Koch brothers being an example. People who are greedy and can never get enough. People who will happily subvert democracy and prevent us from dealing with existential challenges if it helps them hold and acquire wealth.

Why does a society need multi-billionaires? I'll go so far as to say any society that supports and enables such disproportionate wealth is sick. Unfortunately, that very same party has become incredibly skilled at turning groups of challenged people against each other. If working class folks came together with other impoverished groups, things could improve in so many ways. But they're really great at keeping us divided.

The same thing occurred in colonial empires. Consider the way the British maintained power in India. There were hundreds of millions of people ruled by a tiny number of officials and a small military contingent. That was possibly only because the people were divided. Consider also that, prior to colonization, Muslims and Hindus lived together in peace for centuries. In the aftermath of British rule, with decades of discord sewn, India split into two and Pakistan came into existence.

Perhaps something similar will happen here. Perhaps red and blue states will separate at some point. Or perhaps we'll just continue in this dysfuntional way, with one of our political parties essentially a 5th column.

I largely agree with you, but the democrats are at least 90% the same as republicans. They both profit from these huge corporations and donors. There's a small sliver of the blue party that cares about people, the rest are just like Joe Manchin.

 

[Parallax]

I largely agree with you, but the democrats are at least 90% the same as republicans. They both profit from these huge corporations and donors. There's a small sliver of the blue party that cares about people, the rest are just like Joe Manchin.

I couldn't disagree more. Consider the BBB bill. Whose blocking it? Two Democratic senators and the entire Republican party. Simena and Manchin are the only Democrats. Forty eight others would approve it today if they could. Same with filibuster reform to prevent our democracy from getting subverted and to keep a minority party from holding veto power over all progress. There's a very real difference between the parties. Only one party has literally stolen a supreme court seat. Only one party has turned a blind eye to a president's attempt to overthrow an election and continues to aid and abet future efforts.

That said, I agree that Democrats are not perfect. It frustrates me no end that they're not more perfect. But it's way overly simplistic to say the parties are 90% similar. Perhaps 20% similar would be fair. For the most part, Democrats are trying to do right by the people, trying to make things better for people who struggle. There are divisions within the party but they get overstated. But, yes, they're not perfect. My senators here in Washington state, Maria Cantwell and Patty Murry, are not perfect. Sometimes I wish that I could strangle them. They both have connections to large donors. Neither is as progressive as I would like.

 

[jatoxico]

Why does a society need multi-billionaires? I'll go so far as to say any society that supports and enables such disproportionate wealth is sick.

I agree w/ a great deal of what you said. On the other hand, I still think we need to incentivize the pursuit of excellence and yes, wealth. The alternative is stagnation based upon the premise that we all get the identical benefits regardless of effort.

What is needed, IMO humble opinion, is greater checks on the accumulation of wealth and power. Where's Teddy Roosevelt when you need him?

 

[SpaceBus]

I agree w/ a great deal of what you said. On the other hand, I still think we need to incentivize the pursuit of excellence and yes, wealth. The alternative is stagnation based upon the premise that we all get the identical benefits regardless of effort.

What is needed, IMO humble opinion, is greater checks on the accumulation of wealth and power. Where's Teddy Roosevelt when you need him?

I don't think he was implying we all need to earn the same income, but there should be a cap. Nobody is saying you should not be allowed to accumulate wealth, unless it is at the expense to the environment, wildlife, or humans.

 

[Parallax]

I agree w/ a great deal of what you said. On the other hand, I still think we need to incentivize the pursuit of excellence and yes, wealth. The alternative is stagnation based upon the premise that we all get the identical benefits regardless of effort.

What is needed, IMO humble opinion, is greater checks on the accumulation of wealth and power. Where's Teddy Roosevelt when you need him?

You and I overwhelmingly agree. I'm not anti-capitalism. It's not perfect but what are the alternatives? We know feudalism didn't work. Neither did communism. I see capitalism and self interest as a very powerful force, like a strong river. And like a strong river, it needs to be channeled and measures need to be taken to prevent it from overflowing its banks. When done well, it can be a great force for good. I'd love to see the kind of anti-trust enforcement we had from the great depression through the late 1970s when it began to fall out of favor. I see unions as a double edged sword. In some ways they stand up for the little guy but they can also distort and corrupt. These are complex issues. Government is needed in the right measure. Enough but not too much. Capitalism and the impulse to acquire needs to be regulated well.

 

[Parallax]

I don't think he was implying we all need to earn the same income, but there should be a cap. Nobody is saying you should not be allowed to accumulate wealth, unless it is at the expense to the environment, wildlife, or humans.

Yes, you get what I was trying to say. Perhaps a cap or perhaps simply higher tax rates for those at the very top of the income scale. Let those guys do most of what they do but apply a 90% tax beyond some ridiculously high threshold. And absolutely protect the environment, the poor, our social values, etc.

 

[jatoxico]

I don't think he was implying we all need to earn the same income, but there should be a cap. Nobody is saying you should not be allowed to accumulate wealth, unless it is at the expense to the environment, wildlife, or humans.

I didn't think he meant that. Apologies if that was how it sounded. Just pointing out the end point of the other extreme. Striking the balance is the trick and something we're not doing very well at the moment. Between that and coping w/ the fast evolution of tech I'd say we far off from getting it right.

 

[old greybeard]

Almost every positive development in society has been due to capitalism.
Greed is unfortunately a by product. But it drives innovation.
Can’t believe the naive beliefs of some people. I was a socialist when I was 20. Then watched Clinton sell the working class down the pike with GATT and NAFTA. We had a choice, produce our own goods with environmental and worker protections, or ship jobs to China to build our crap with slave labor and no environmental controls. We chose greed, and now want to act like we give a damn.
All a act for control, as they buy their beach mansions and fly in their private jets. Meanwhile we pollute our oceans and streams, our forests are dying, not from climate but from invasive species.
If you really think BBB or the government is the answer you haven’t been watching the lies and failures of the last year.

 

[bholler]

Almost every positive development in society has been due to capitalism.
Greed is unfortunately a by product. But it drives innovation.
Can’t believe the naive beliefs of some people. I was a socialist when I was 20. Then watched Clinton sell the working class down the pike with GATT and NAFTA. We had a choice, produce our own goods with environmental and worker protections, or ship jobs to China to build our crap with slave labor and no environmental controls. We chose greed, and now want to act like we give a damn.
All a act for control, as they buy their beach mansions and fly in their private jets. Meanwhile we pollute our oceans and streams, our forests are dying, not from climate but from invasive species.
If you really think BBB or the government is the answer you haven’t been watching the lies and failures of the last year.

The thing that people seem to have forgotten is that both sides can work together. And that is really the only way the country will survive. Yes we need capitalism. But capitalism unchecked will destroy the country just as fast as socialism left unchecked.

The system only works when the 2 sides work together and balance each other out.

Claiming every positive advancement in society has been made by capitalism it a huge stretch and if you are honest capitalism has also caused many many negatives as well.

 

[Dan Freeman]

The system only works when the 2 sides work together and balance each other out.

That is the key. Both sides need to work together, but we have become so polarized with each camp thinking the other is dead wrong and the devil incarnate. It is not enough to say both sides need to work together. How do we do it? I know I don't have the answer, but as a country we better figure it out soon, or it will be our demise.

 

[jatoxico]

The thing that people seem to have forgotten is that both sides can work together. And that is really the only way the country will survive.

Agreed.

That is the key. Both sides need to work together, but we have become so polarized with each camp thinking the other is dead wrong and the devil incarnate.

Yup, My concern is at the moment, the rhetoric is that the "bad guys" are fellow citizens. And not just, I disagree with you bad guys, but same level of demonizing we used to reserve for foreign enemies. Very dangerous talk.

 

[fire_man]

I largely agree with you, but the democrats are at least 90% the same as republicans. They both profit from these huge corporations and donors. There's a small sliver of the blue party that cares about people, the rest are just like Joe Manchin.

I was not happy that Joe Manchin pushed back on BBB but agree that he opposes sick Leave because people will use it for hunting trips.

I saw it first hand at my employer when they used to offer sick time and it was abused. Eventually they got rid of sick time as a benefit and rolled it into "Payed Time Off".

 

[NorMi]

I have no real desire to really get into the nitty gritty, as I've been involved in some form or another with the underlying topic of the movie since 1992. I worked on this full time for the past decade and developed a strong analytical detachment over that period. I've been involved with or near the center of many of the largest groups over the years researching, studying, journal clubs, brainstorming. In 30 years the following has happened:

1. We understood we were near the precipice of a world changing event, and we assumed only at that precipice could we meet the challenge.
2. Every year data returns indicate that things were happening/getting worse faster than expected
3. Every year justifications were made to publicly push the presumption of the precipice timing into the future, even in light of #2
4. Every year cooperating against a common unifying problem fell by the wayside. Instead the species divided further and further into more organized competing factions, devoting more resources to that competition than to universal existential problems.

We knew we had an immediacy problem on climate and that led to competing viewpoints of probable action lag and timing responses. The pandemic actually provided a live experiment where we could study and model the effects of immediacy on action at known precipice events. You all know the results as this point. I as well as a large percentage of friends and colleagues around my age left the last major groups that were serious about studying this topic this last year +/-. My opinion is the precipice has passed, and my studies about the dynamics of cooperation and competition in living organisms is formally finished. My summary conclusion is that we will receive our object lesson in the Fermi paradox in real time and we will still be arguing and competing over other things while it happens. In this light I guess you could say I reached the same conclusions as the writer/director.

 

[clancey]

I see you seem to be not optimistic for the future and good writing by the way...clancey

 

[old greybeard]

The thing that people seem to have forgotten is that both sides can work together. And that is really the only way the country will survive. Yes we need capitalism. But capitalism unchecked will destroy the country just as fast as socialism left unchecked.

The system only works when the 2 sides work together and balance each other out.

Claiming every positive advancement in society has been made by capitalism it a huge stretch and if you are honest capitalism has also caused many many negatives as well.

Capitalism didn’t cause negatives, socialism/communism didn’t either.
People do, as always. Greed, laziness, lust for sex and power drive most corruption. Which should surprise nobody who studies history or human nature.
Trick is being intelligent enough to know human weaknesses and how to properly motivate people.
Free markets do that best, with corresponding responsibilities. We should not have free trade with countries that pollute or enslave. But we’re greedy. Want our cheap crap, and turn a blind eye.
No answers among men, we are corrupt.
Id like to hear what advances have come via of any government controlled economy.
For example near me a new NG electric plant was just built. Powers 1 million homes. Replaced a coal powered plant that powered 200k homes, and had 98% higher emissions. All due to cheap gas due to fracking, developed by capitalists who invested and worked. Meanwhile people in Philly saw there NG heat bills drop by 50% plus due to fracking.
Yet now out governor, without legislative approval is placing us into a NE greenhouse initiative with other states. Yet in PA we have already exceeded their goals. And their answer is to tax higher, and spend it on more government. Of couldn’t they just gave themselves a built in 5% raise. Ask yourself why the massive concern about emissions while we ignore pollution. China is destroying the Ocean with pollution, and the air with emissions. Yet they are given a permission to build a coal plant every day under the Paris accord. Why? Because nobody really wants change. Just power. And we the fat lazy people want cheap stuff, but want to pretend to care.

 

[clancey]

As far as I am concerned "We are already looking up"...clancey

 

[begreen]

Closing thread due to politics taking it over since last night. My closing thoughts are that both political parties are guilty as long as they continue to allow massive subsidies to the fossil fuel industry. Our tax dollars are paying to destroy the planet in many ways, but the fossil fuel subsidies and overbuilding of the military-industrial complex are perhaps the most heinous examples. I don't see either party facing these issues head-on. Just like in the movie, politics gets in the way every time. Until we get the money out of our political system, we are screwed, IMO.

PS: Well put NorMi, we have our collective heads in the sand and definitely are not looking up, nor are we prepared to do the hard work and make the real sacrifices that it will take at this juncture to make meaningful change.