Redefining sustainability
The leftists only consider the term sustainability with regard to the Earth's resources. To succeed in getting millenials to disavow socialism and move toward Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, we need to use the term sustainability to point out their inconsistency. The cost of every program that they propose (climate change carbon taxes, Obamacare, "free" college, etc.) is UNsustainable. The national debt is UNsustainable. I think I have stumbled onto the way to help millenials "unlearn what they have (mis)learned".
We must stop the world from ending and all you care about is how to pay for it?
(sarcasm off)
I hope you can wake people up to the fraud of these fools.
/s
TANSTAAFL
But there is no chance that the energy needs of the global economies can be met by these sustainable/renewable wind/solar generators, nor will food production be sufficient.
There will be malnutrition and starvation. There will be widespread violence which will assist and will be a cause of death. Some of the greenies actually want this. Most cannot think one-step ahead. But death is what they will get. Hardly 'sustainable'.
Not to worry, the greenies are just voters and are not in control.
Those in control, call them pragmatists, governments, existing big business and the new carpet baggers, have no ideals or beliefs, right or wrong. They want the contracts, the rake-offs, the licenses, and the acclaim of saving the planet. This is not sustainable either but the decline is slower.
But that is because most of these elitists also support massive global depopulation. They want a world with only a few million humans not the billions there are now.
“Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.“ many link Ted Turner to this erection.( for OUC’s humor) LOL
Europeans stopped reproducing and voila, here is the solution: let's plant people from Africa and the ME where families count 7-8 children per family vs that of a typical European below 1.
One of the contradictions you encounter when politics interfere with facts.
The first thing to understand is that the peoples of Europe are in large part victims of their own "success" in cultural manipulation. They have been indoctrinated by socialists since WW II and have embraced the high taxes and few children that such a system extols. The problem is that a socialist system depends on many worker bees to feed the elitists and when everyone considers themselves an elitist, the system breaks down in a big way. Thus the need to import more workers to drive the system.
The uneducated (largely immigrants) are easier to enslave in order to feed such a system. This arrogant and hubristic mentality is completely consistent with hundreds of years of history in this country (the US) starting with the importation of black slaves from Africa. The single most emancipating thing is education - which is why Democrats are trying so hard to destroy the school systems and neighborhoods of black communities in the United States: it has been their goal since Andrew Jackson took over the party in the late 1820's. It's no secret that the worst performing schools are predominantly black and in Democratically-controlled inner cities - and it is no surprise either.
In Europe, the elitists love the immigrants coming in - or think that they do - because they believe them to be uneducated and therefore easy to control. The problem with this mentality is that many of these people (read Muslims) are already ideologically indoctrinated and therefore mostly immune to the typical controls the elitists have hitherto been able to use. Thus instead of importing an ignorant and pliable population, they are actually importing the exact kind of wholesale cultural change they perpetrated on their own countries over the past 70 years. On their current trajectory, the EU will be one huge, homogeneous bloc of nations - all dominated by Muslims - in 100 years. What is ironic is that it is the Muslims' own militancy that will lead to greater and greater conflicts with the European cultural mindset - a war which the Europeans can not win without abandoning the socialist rhetoric and either going full-scale communist or full-scale free enterprise. Anything but the extreme and they will lose the fight because of a lack of will.
It still does not explain the depopulation drive you were alluding to.
The elite may support it but they are working directly against that goal in Europe and in the US as well.
Europe will not get depopulated: as you pointed out it'll be fully Muslim, with ten times the population as of today, 360 degrees against anything Europe once stood for. The Germans became brainwashed after WW2 and are willing to do everything to shed the stigma, including suicide. On the other hand, if the former colonizing nations in Europe now have bad conscious and want to redeem their sinful past, fine. But don't expect all nations in Europe to sign up to that suicide pact, like the former communist countries. Hungary, for example is steadfastly against all migrants, especially Muslims and built a wall when the migration waves hit. The country and its PM have been vilified ever since, under a tremendous pressure from the EU and its bureaucrats. The UN joined the fray recently.
Never mind that Merkel was ousted for her "Welcome" policies. Sweden is a basket case and so is France, due to the Muslim invasion.
The tragedy is that it is ongoing, despite every normal person seeing for what it is.
You're making the cardinal mistake of believing that these progressive elitists are mentally consistent in the first place! ;)
I think that they talk a big game about de-population but realistically the only way that happens is total destruction of the planet via either nukes or another global pandemic like the bubonic plague. Conventional war just doesn't get the job done very well.
(The problem with nukes is culpability - after you drop one your head is on a platter unless you have someone solid you can blame as an instigator. I think that's one of the reasons leftists court these megalomaniacal dictators like Kim Jong Il because they WANT them to initiate something they can use as an excuse for overkill.)
I do see something like a superflu or a hidden poison in the flu vaccines as one real way to institute widespread depopulation. "The Omega Man" is a very real scenario - even though the remake with Will Smith was more politically correct in the origins of the disease. The ostensible plan is that the elites retreat to their bunkers for a couple of years while such a plague ravages the known world and then they re-emerge to find themselves the grand conquerors of everything they see.
The biggest problem with these elitists is the control mindset: they think that they can manage everything. They have a "god" complex - very literally - and as a result they often commit to a course of action which any sane person will recognize is self-annihilation because they believe themselves able to control the outcomes and consequences - not just the initial choices.
Oh, yes, I wanted to insert that but it got lost as I was formulating my answer.
The elite live in their comfortable enclaves from where they pontificate and want to control. I always enjoy seeing when their "grand" scenario falls flat in practice. They make up these unrealistic things, that they themselves don't believe in. but expect the "masses" to do. Then they throw a tantrum when it doesn't work.
Obama threw his tantrum when he realized his grand ideas fell on deaf ears among the majority of Americans and he attacked them by "clinging to their guns and religions".
Macron is furious that his grand plan to convert France and the EU into a globalist paradise met its banana skin on a trivial thing of raised fuel taxes.
Merkel could not understand how her "Wir machen das" flopped even after she lost her grab on power.
I would be ok with the failure of all these nitwits had that failure not cost immense suffering and hardship to millions of people. The lesson is learned only by the latter, when going to the polls next time. You can't expect the elite to learn.
I say Hyper inflation will be the result.
Leave the debt where it is and dont make it any worse might be a good thing to try. Of course, that puts us in an instant recession or perhaps depression- thats not going to happen before 2020 election as it would kill Trump's chances. After 2020, it would mean big cutbacks in the social programs the leftists want to instantly install if (when) they win.
I was around when the inflation was more like 17% during the WHIP INFLATION NOW programs in I think the late 70's. They did price and wage controls, but let interest rates go where they wanted .
One way to fix the debt would be to let the dollar fall big time, and put a cap on what foreign holders of dollars could cash in. Internally, they could put a cap on withdrawals from private accounts too.
People will go into gold and silver, and the government will make holding those illegal as they did in the 1930's
In any event, its going to be a series of draconian moves , and the government will attempt to come out of it intact, screwing over current holders of paper dollars.
Then you contradict your self. The Fact is if we print more money to pay the debt the dollars value will weaken and the result is inflation.
How it was changed . The old way as an example used a fixed cost of a meal, say Steak potatoes Salad bread milk. That cost was measured against the previous years cost the difference would be rate of inflation. Just an example mind you but the change occurred when they started substituting Ground beef for the steak or maybe chicken. Basically the CPI is understating inflation by about 6-7%. Why? They don’t want you to see what the monetary policy of the FED , WallStreet and Govt spending
Is doing to your wealth and standard of living.
As long as the actual price inflation is kept low enough per year, people will just ignore it and the government gets away with it.
A one ounce chunk of gold when I was in college was as I remember $40. Now its $1300. THATS REAL INFLATION
1967 Camero z28
Original
MSRP
Low
Retail
Average
Retail
High
Retail
Base Price
$2,930
$44,700
$66,200
$95,900
Options (Add)
Total Price
$2,930
$44,700
$66,200
$95,900
This whole 12K year cycle replenishes earth with resources including gold etc.
What isn't sustainable is how governments, the epa and peta have ruined our enviroment.
The other thing we have to put forward is that Environment and Climate are two different things. The environment has No effect on climate, ie weather patterns over long periods of time.
With regard to the excesses of the EPA, however, no one would agree with you more. I have to deal with aperiodic EPA inspections of my labs. The idea that labels on vials might fall off, making the contents "unknown", scares the heck out of me.
Laughing...tell the leftest that the mountains are not man made!...hahahahahahaaaa
Tired of getting blamed for everything...
Seems that the actions or inactions of the epa has created some of the worst environmental damage than mankind ever did by himself.
Note: I consider the ruling factions of the epa and peta as non human.
I said "My God... The Great Lakes were formed by Glaciers, which were CLEARLY melted by GLOBAL Warming!"...
And yet, there were NO SUVs...
Do you find that strange? We had ICE down to OHIO, Glaciers in OHIO.
What did those Cavemen Do???
Is that proof they ate too much red Meat?
It is no surprise to me that the cost of government welfare is roughly analogous to our total national debt.
For example a 'sustainable' forest to them means to not cut more than a minimal amount of trees, without regard to replanting or natural regeneration for future use: If it changes noticeably from static equilibrium, they don't like it. And never mind that an inefficient minimal-use forestry operation is not economically 'sustainable' in a market -- sacrifice to the preservationism is not to be regarded primarily as a "resource" at all.
The closest they get to sustainability in economics is the same statis. Drilling for fossil fuels is "unsustainable" because eventually it will run out, and never mind that new technologies are developed (including for extraction of previously unusable resources). Some of them insist that "sustainable development" is inherently impossible.
Using the term "unsustainable" related to their own economic or social policy has for decades made no dent on the left. How many times has it been pointed out that the national debt, or the expenditures for Social Security, are literally not sustainable? They don't care. The collectivist false moral ideal always takes priority. How will it be paid for? "You'll do it somehow Mr. Rearden" -- including taxing "The Rich", imagined to be several times more than they have to take. It's their version of 'new technology': more government force imagined to be the panacea. Even if their collectivism were 'sustainable' there vision of static tribalism would be unjustified.
The environmentalist push for sustainability is a demand for a return to the primitive. Even just stating that would be an effective argument against the regressives, but that presumes that they will listen to reason - a bad presumption.
When it comes to sustainability, I think that the idea that any threat to "utopian socialism" would feel "bad", and therefore would be upsetting to them. The biggest threat to utopian socialism is the nature of man itself- that the people would not sacrifice themselves forever for some idea of "common good" that is presented by the "-ism". Thats what brings down socialism, fascism, communism, etc, and makes kills its sustainability. It has no auto correct feature built into it. The only way it has been preserved is by the use of force against the non believers or the partial believers.
That’s why many mind blow when asked, are men and women different?
In my experience, emotions are stronger in women than in men, such that they tend to react more emotionally to situations. Its just the wiring of the brain, where emotions are amplified more than thinking. I think there are also genetic differences in this regard from one race to another, and one person to another. Not a big deal, but I suspect these effects are wired from birth, as well as subject to change from culture.
https://youtu.be/-4S0gHlKiho
Large deficits are unsustainable, but it seems like we deny reality and will only deal with them when they turn into a mini-crisis. It's exactly the same with large greenhouse gas emissions are unsustainable: we will pay the costs when they present rather than dealing with it now. People want the benefits now. Even if the costs of the repercussions are greater than the benefit, it's someone else who will be paying those future costs.
I think about whether those gov't spending programs are "sustainable:" a massive gov't healthcare program, free grade school, free college, a massive military industrial complex with bases around the world, keeping a huge chunk of the population imprisoned or under supervision of the criminal justice system for non-violent drug offense. They're "sustainable" if we want to send a big chunk of our earnings to the gov't.
I (as opposed to we) don't want to do so. Collective vs. individual ... all over again.
Quotes Edit
Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class - involving high meat intake, the use of fossil fuels, electrical appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing - are not sustainable.
Maurice Strong, opening speech at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit[specific citation needed] But this quotation is not in the version posted on Mr. Strong's site. http://www.mauricestrong.net/index.ph...
If we don't change, our species will not survive... Frankly, we may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse.
Maurice Strong, September 1, 1997 edition of National Review magazine
What if a small group of world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the Earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it? The group's conclusion is 'no'. The rich countries won't do it. They won't change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?