Announcement

Join us on Discord: https://discord.gg/nf43FxS
Discuss.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+1,965|3589|London, England

uziq wrote:

yes and the only solution to climate change is unelected technocrats. how are these issues indivisible in your head? people just voted for green councillors in the UK in record numbers. elected politicians, not some supernumerary trans-national order.

why are they sick of unelected technocrats? is it because
(a) the EU has foisted an ideologically motivated program of economic austerity on the working people of europe for over a decade; or
(b) solar power

is this really so complicated for you? tackling climate change or ecological issues does not necessarily involve a (supposedly) oppressive, economically unequal political arrangement.
By your own admission in your karma to dilbert you concede the point. You wish for an autocratic regime of enlightened bureaucrats to force everyone that you consider a rube to be forced to live as you believe they should.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
uziq
Member
+157|1683
no, my karma to dilbert alludes to the fact that neoliberalism is an ideological position which posits that states should bend over to the 'liberal' (that is, Enlightened) values of the market. the invisible hand is more 'enlightened' thinking than any sort of state interventionism, you know (or should do; you profess to have read it all). my point was that the overton window of political possibility was shifted drastically to the right in thatcher–reagan years, and now nation states are puzzling over questions such as 'can we run our own rail networks?' whereas 50 years ago public transport was a given. the ideology has altered our sense of political possibility. 'centrism' in the form that macron and hillary represent, and that populists rallied against, is an essentially fiscally conservative and pro-market ideology; it's a euphemism for a coded set of ideological assumptions about the way the world should be run (read: capitalism trumps all government).

that's a little different to 'wishing for an autocratic regime of bureaucrats'. i believe in state intervention in the economy, and especially in ecology and the environment, where possible, yes.

if people in a representative democracy hold pro-environment positions, elect green party officials, and entrust them to enact policies on their behalf, is it a 'technocratic unelected bureaucratic autocratic elite?' my point earlier was that attitudes in the general mainstream of discourse are shifting now towards green positions. the younger generations are more concerned about climate change and ecological collapse than any other. in 10 years time they will be voting for parties that put these issues centre stage. at what point does that become some 'gub'mint intervening in my life and right to be a free citizen' paranoiac theory? almost all parties left-of-centre in europe are also pro-environment in their core policies. which sort of scotches your idea that climate change politics is inextricably some tyranny visited upon the people by a select cabal of 'irrational' cultists.

Last edited by uziq (2019-05-08 06:54:17)

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,609|4337|eXtreme to the maX
I do personally believe that unelected technocrats (as long as they're not corrupt or self-interested, good luck finding them) are the best people to run a country.

But individuals want what they want and as soon as you tell someone they can't have something they want it even more.
Sacrifices are things someone else has to make so the average moron can consume more, and they vote accordingly.

I will never forget the numbskull complaining that 'something must be done' about global warming, because he liked to fly his family from Australia to Europe every year to go trekking on a glacier, and if it melted he wouldn't be able to.

Who are these fucking morons

Emma Thompson flew 5,400 miles to join climate change protest
https://i0.wp.com/metro.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/SEI_63270576.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&zoom=1&resize=768%2C511&ssl=1
https://metro.co.uk/2019/04/19/emma-tho … t-9262552/

It doesn't help that locally the 'Green' party's top priority for the past five years has been gay marriage, now they've got it they're in total disarray.
https://greens.org.au/policies/sexual-o … d-intersex
Yup, that'll save the planet.

As an engineer it is disappointing that the more efficiency gains you give people the more dumb ways they invent to burn up energy pointlessly.
Give them more efficient passenger aircraft - they'll travel further for the same money and burn the exact same amount of oil, whats been gained for all that engineering risk and effort? Nothing.

There are grassroots movements, but for every person buying solar panels or going vegan there's a moron circumnavigating the globe by jet aircraft to attend a wedding or buying a VW Amarok for the urban commute.

There are only two real solutions, cut the population and cut personal consumption. But neither is going to happen and there's no real point. Every time I turn of a lightbulb there's an Indian having their tenth kid.

I'm as pissed as Uzique but what can you do.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2019-05-08 06:51:14)

Your virus system is infected with windows. Please to be giving me your credit card details urgently
uziq
Member
+157|1683
it's very easy to scoff at celebrities who fly all around the world, or the world's elite who all take private jets to congregate at fancy alpine resorts to discuss the 'climate catastrophe'. on the surface it's an obvious hypocrisy. but then you look into the political leanings of the media sources that delight in this stuff, and there's always some koch brothers money or some fucking bullshit not far behind. they are easy targets but they sure as hell don't invalidate the general point.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,609|4337|eXtreme to the maX
Of course not, but then the average peon sees it happening and doesn't see why they should make any sacrifices themselves.
Your virus system is infected with windows. Please to be giving me your credit card details urgently
uziq
Member
+157|1683
i'm just really puzzled that jay lumps any political efforts at tackling climate change along with 'technocratic elites foisting rules on the people', which apparently is part of the rise of populism in italy/hungary, brexit, etc. i don't think environmental issues were ever involved in those protests. the rise of germany's far-right being to do with increasing energy bills is fucking hilarious. the AfD, that known consumer-watchdog.

Last edited by uziq (2019-05-08 06:57:34)

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,609|4337|eXtreme to the maX
Well the technocratic elite foisted nuclear power on the people and that was the start of popular uprising in Germany, probably the first time they've rejected elite technocracy in the history of the country?

The Libertarian view, the free market will solve everything, is not a helpful one either since it never has dealt with an actual big issue.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2019-05-08 07:09:48)

Your virus system is infected with windows. Please to be giving me your credit card details urgently
uziq
Member
+157|1683
that's a good point about germany's history with nuclear power, but i feel that has more to do with fears about the technology itself than with the principle of politically led interventions in issues like the environment, energy, climate change, etc. have there ever been widespread political backlashes against green agendas and state-led schemes in europe? jay's angle seems to be that it's a violation of individual freedom; i don't think any european country has this same sort of attitude about the government dealing with major issues.
SuperJail Warden
Member
+191|1950
There was an article in the New York Times about people in the Midwest who were doing large public work projects to combat the effects of climate change specifically flooding. I don't know why we can't do more of that, adapting, rather arguing about whether or not climate change is real.

I suspect the climate change deniers just don't want to spend any money on this at all and don't expect to live to see the outcome. I think most fiscal conservatives don't actually think climate change isn't real or that most other problems aren't real but have just given up on society and building a future as a whole.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+1,965|3589|London, England

SuperJail Warden wrote:

There was an article in the New York Times about people in the Midwest who were doing large public work projects to combat the effects of climate change specifically flooding. I don't know why we can't do more of that, adapting, rather arguing about whether or not climate change is real.

I suspect the climate change deniers just don't want to spend any money on this at all and don't expect to live to see the outcome. I think most fiscal conservatives don't actually think climate change isn't real or that most other problems aren't real but have just given up on society and building a future as a whole.
Because we see corruption everywhere in national schemes. The Army Corps of Engineers does a fairly good job building and maintaining levees and the like. That's their mission. The stuff they do doesn't earn headlines but it does improve the world. The stuff I do doesn't earn headlines either but it does improve the world as well. Engineering is mostly boring incremental stuff. Maintenance, improvements over time, etc. Politically directed national projects on a scale like AOC was pushing or stuff like California High Speed Rail become political slush funds full of incompetence, corruption and cost overruns.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
SuperJail Warden
Member
+191|1950
Even if there are cost overruns and some politicians get a coke and stripper party every so often, as long as new infrastructure is built than its just the price of doing business and worth it. I read about that giant sewer tunnel under Chicago they have been working on for 50 years. It's expensive and delayed but it works so it's all worth it.

The corruption argument in order to not do something is both dumbass and a deflection. The rich and even middle class has plenty of money to invest in basic infrastructure. Everyone rather have the latest PlayStation game or a new GPU instead. Priorities.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+1,965|3589|London, England

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Even if there are cost overruns and some politicians get a coke and stripper party every so often, as long as new infrastructure is built than its just the price of doing business and worth it. I read about that giant sewer tunnel under Chicago they have been working on for 50 years. It's expensive and delayed but it works so it's all worth it.

The corruption argument in order to not do something is both dumbass and a deflection. The rich and even middle class has plenty of money to invest in basic infrastructure. Everyone rather have the latest PlayStation game or a new GPU instead. Priorities.
Look around you. They just replaced the Tappan Zee Bridge, the Kosciuzco Bridge, they're rebuilding the GWB. La Guardia airport is being completely rebuilt. JFK is constantly in a state of improvement. Drive through downtown Brooklyn and it's cranes as far as the eye can see. Tons of money is spent on infrastructure projects every day, you're just looking for the David Brooks style Grand National Project Three Gorges Dam type thing. That stuff just makes headlines.

I worked on a state project for about a year that was funneling money from one state agency through another in order to fund a project under the auspices of being a green energy improvement project. It was directed by a governor and was a complete vanity project. The budget leaked to the press and the project was killed after we were halfway done. It would've been cool to complete it, but my first reaction when my boss brought me onto the project was what a colossal waste of money it was going to be.

Politicians are just about the worst people imaginable to make decisions about which projects should be started or funded, but at leas they're accountable to the people and can be voted out of office.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
SuperJail Warden
Member
+191|1950
A giant flood sewer under the coastal cities sounds useful.
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+282|5006|Moscow, Russia

Jay wrote:

Politicians are just about the worst people imaginable to make decisions about which projects should be started or funded, but at leas they're accountable to the people and can be voted out of office.
politicians can be voted out of office by the people? where?
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,609|4337|eXtreme to the maX

Jay wrote:

Politicians are just about the worst people imaginable to make decisions about which projects should be started or funded, but at leas they're accountable to the people and can be voted out of office.
Hence we need a technocratic elite, one with the stomach to deal with excess population and excessive personal consumption.

Personally I don't think Thanos thought big enough, we would need to cut the population by 9/10 to let everyone have a western lifestyle.

How do you decide who is deserving? Cut every country to the population density of Australia and climate change would be solved at a stroke.

Or is everyone entitled to the same level of consumption? India etc could never supply their people, their simply isn't the land, sunshine or rain to give them all a western diet.
Your virus system is infected with windows. Please to be giving me your credit card details urgently
uziq
Member
+157|1683

Shahter wrote:

Jay wrote:

Politicians are just about the worst people imaginable to make decisions about which projects should be started or funded, but at leas they're accountable to the people and can be voted out of office.
politicians can be voted out of office by the people? where?
a labour MP was deselected by her constituents about two weeks ago in the UK. there is a process in place to do such a thing. can you do some actual research before rehearsing this endless ‘edge lord’ act? we get it, you’re so damn cynical.

Last edited by uziq (2019-05-09 07:14:01)

uziq
Member
+157|1683

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jay wrote:

Politicians are just about the worst people imaginable to make decisions about which projects should be started or funded, but at leas they're accountable to the people and can be voted out of office.
Hence we need a technocratic elite, one with the stomach to deal with excess population and excessive personal consumption.

Personally I don't think Thanos thought big enough, we would need to cut the population by 9/10 to let everyone have a western lifestyle.

How do you decide who is deserving? Cut every country to the population density of Australia and climate change would be solved at a stroke.

Or is everyone entitled to the same level of consumption? India etc could never supply their people, their simply isn't the land, sunshine or rain to give them all a western diet.
to be fair i don’t think most of the world wants a western diet. india fortuitouslyhas a different attitude to consuming meat — the most polluting types, anyway — and china seem equally happy eating bugs as well as endangered animals. there are many things a developing nation could naturally want to emulate from the west, but our diets are not the best. the problem with soy or palm oil monocultures, on the other hand ...

white goods, home applicances, modern infrastructure and amenities; cars and transport; etc ... i agree not everyone can have a western version of 2 cars on the drive and a new smartphone every year. hopefully technological innovations are moving to make the aforementioned more environmentally friendly.

Last edited by uziq (2019-05-09 07:19:23)

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,609|4337|eXtreme to the maX
India is a bad example for beef demand, but otherwise everyone aspires to excrete more than they need to live.

https://www.earth-policy.org/images/uploads/graphs_tables/update102_uschinameat.PNG

There is no point to technological advances, either the population expands to soak up any benefit or people increase their consumption in the same or other areas.
Without govt intervention efficiency savings achieve nothing, make cars or aircraft more efficient and people just travel further or use the savings to burn up their money in other ways.
Steadily increasing carbon taxes does drive efficiency and crimp consumption.
Without population control there is little point doing anything.

Just looking at this chart we're fucked. China and India want western diets but are not going to get them, not without an extra planet.
Plus China is rapidly poisoning its own farmland, the Chinese don't want to feed their kids Chinese produce.[/img]

At the other end of the scale last night I had a dessert which had gold leaf on it (I didn't notice when I ordered, I just wanted an apple tart) how dumb and wasteful.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2019-05-11 00:51:14)

Your virus system is infected with windows. Please to be giving me your credit card details urgently
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+282|5006|Moscow, Russia

uziq wrote:

Shahter wrote:

Jay wrote:

Politicians are just about the worst people imaginable to make decisions about which projects should be started or funded, but at leas they're accountable to the people and can be voted out of office.
politicians can be voted out of office by the people? where?
a labour MP was deselected by her constituents about two weeks ago in the UK.
that supposed to impress me? so a party decided to replace one of their talking heads with another, boo-fucking-hoo, democracy in action!
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
uziq
Member
+157|1683

Shahter wrote:

uziq wrote:

Shahter wrote:


politicians can be voted out of office by the people? where?
a labour MP was deselected by her constituents about two weeks ago in the UK.
that supposed to impress me? so a party decided to replace one of their talking heads with another, boo-fucking-hoo, democracy in action!
no. she was de-selected by her constituents. there is another election as a result. that is direct democracy.

what are you complaining about here? party mechanics? the fact people serve political terms for fixed periods? so much worse than one-party government, indefinitely!
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+282|5006|Moscow, Russia

uziq wrote:

Shahter wrote:

uziq wrote:

a labour MP was deselected by her constituents about two weeks ago in the UK.
that supposed to impress me? so a party decided to replace one of their talking heads with another, boo-fucking-hoo, democracy in action!
no. she was de-selected by her constituents. there is another election as a result. that is direct democracy.
ummm... so, basically, you are telling me there's a party in uk that has a mechanism for its members (and, presumably, others as well) who voted certain politician into power and then got dissatisfied with his/her performance, to get together and have a vote to remove said politician from the post ahead of the term? for real?

what are you complaining about here? party mechanics? the fact people serve political terms for fixed periods? so much worse than one-party government, indefinitely!
i'm not complaining about anything. i'm laughing my ass off at jays and the likes who actually believe they can influence politics.

Last edited by Shahter (2019-05-12 06:35:01)

if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
uziq
Member
+157|1683
yes i’m telling you that’s what happened. it’s a deselection process. the local constituents (not party members) took a vote during her term and removed her, triggering a re-election in the area.

yes, you’re so intelligent for laughing at people who think a democratic vote can make a difference. you have really regressed into a cynical little adolescent when it comes to politics. but it’s okay, we understand. living in putin’s russia must be very depressing.
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+282|5006|Moscow, Russia

uziq wrote:

it’s a deselection process. the local constituents (not party members) took a vote during her term and removed her, triggering a re-election in the area.
interesting. is that^ mandated by law for every electable position, or is that a special practice (of a party, or a region)?
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+282|5006|Moscow, Russia
okay. so the google doesn't seem to confirm what you posted above. being deselected doesn't mean removal from the currently occupied post for a politician - it means he won't be able to run for it again in the following election. thus, no matter how poorly one does, he still gets to stay for the whole term. that is a big difference - and that's what i was pointing out in my first reply to jay.
am i missing something?
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+1,965|3589|London, England

Shahter wrote:

uziq wrote:

it’s a deselection process. the local constituents (not party members) took a vote during her term and removed her, triggering a re-election in the area.
interesting. is that^ mandated by law for every electable position, or is that a special practice (of a party, or a region)?
We have it too. They're called recall elections.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2019 Jeff Minard