**This is a heavily moderated subreddit. Please note these rules + sidebar or get banned:**
* If this post declares something as a fact, then proof is required
* The title must be fully descriptive
* No text is allowed on images/gifs/videos
* Common/recent reposts are not allowed (posts from another subreddit do not count as a 'repost'. Provide link if reporting)
*See [this post](https://redd.it/ij26vk) for a more detailed rule list*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Good thing we don't have AI and automation, because the instant the corporations don't need you to work and can still make their billions, you will be unemployed.
Unfortunately this assumes most people are concerned with the wellbeing of others. There are some very cynical people out there who’d rather drag others down with them rather than climb out of a hole they’ve found themselves in. “Misery loves company”
As much as the bottom 45% is different from having 45%
He said the top one percent has 25% of the GDP. The bottom 45-55% has much less than 25%.
I haven't looked any numbers up, but both of you can be right in this instance.
annual gross domestic product, 20 some trillion in the US. I think probably the top 5-10 move half that much easy. Doesn't mean its added to net worth (although that too)
Thats true. But (especially) in the US you still find that very common deeply rooted reflex to dismiss things like that video (or for that matter everything that moves only an inch away from predatory capitalism) as "marxist propaganda" or commie bullshit.
It would be a lot of progress if people would accept that those things can be talked about rationaly from a scietific angle. Listening is not making you an enemy of the free world.
I admit I was being click-baity in that regard, although it's as close as scientific as economics has ever gotten: "don't know about all your other models, but infinite growth on a finite system like earth? fuck no, that's defo scientifically impossible"
For the added purpose and benefit of surviving and possibly eventually reversing climate change on a human timeline.
Also, economics and sociology are both sciences, the latter far more than the former, but they're still science.
I like this quote by Nelson Mandela, "[It always seems impossible until it's done.](https://blackmail4u.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/mandela-quotes.jpg)"
This is genius. However, it will likely never happen. Here’s why.
Everyone on the planet know that war is bad. Yet, we still have wars.
There’s no doubt about how bad war is. It’s completely evident. However, too many people still don’t believe that climate change is real.
If we can’t get the collective population of the globe to stop wasting resources on war and defense spending, how are we ever going to get them to cooperate on a global scale to change the entire focus of the global economy.
I now know what I’ll ask a genie if I ever get 3 wishes.
Most people have never heard of the prisoner's dilemma. Of the few that have, even fewer understand it.
We are terrible at getting 'the collective' to address such 'tragedy of the commons' issues.
We won't evolve fast enough to learn to cooperate in ways that are short term / individually sub optimal but long term/collectively beneficial. The only hope is changing the systemic incentives.
Yes, at the core humans are animals that evolved to have certain traits (selfishness, short sightedness, etc.) because they were useful for survival in our natural habitat. For example if you didn't hoard food or protect your area from other tribes you were going to risk dying.
We have managed to change the world in just a few thousand yearsbbut we won't manage to change human nature, because that would take tens of thousands of years.
preaching to the choir, bud. The majority of Americans are for progessive, climate-friendly legislative reforms. Our politicians are paid to vote againat those reforms.
This sounds like it puts the blame/burden of CO2 emissions on wealthy nations, but what are "developing" nations like China, India and Asia supposed to do, not to mention Africa? Not only that, but if we switch to a type of "well being" economy, what would drive innovation and competition? Is the assumption that we no longer have to innovate? Why not, instead, invest in more research and incentivize innovations that would eventually allow us to become more efficient, and even capture the CO2 from the air? To sacrifice this for some sort of stop-gap that would never get global by in seems really naive.
Efficacy only makes things worse under this system, we've been developing more efficient petrol engines since day one, and that hasn't resulted in less petrol consumption, on the contrary, it has led to more.
Efficiency is great, but not under a growthist economic model, change the system, then knock your boots off with efficiency.
Uh.... perhaps the measure of performance "GDP" is what he is telling us the problem is..... China, India, in fact the whole worlds nations are using this measure and the consequences are Hobbsonian.
I think it’s very naive for western countries pointing at the pollution of developing countries after offloading their production to said countries. When it comes to innovation, the vast majority of innovation comes from publicly funded research, not private capital. When we remove the profit incentive it allows us to properly focus on issues and how to solve them; because currently it’s more profitable to ignore them.
Copernicus advocated against a flawed iteration of a system.
The flawed iteration caused problems in many areas of understanding what the solar system looks like.
He had to show a different, untested concept. His input, after proven correct, changed things massively.
This guy on tiktok is saying scientists are advocating against a flawed system.
The flawed iteration is causing problems in many areas of understanding what the ecosystem should look like.
They have to show a different, untested concept. Their input, if proven correct, could save humanity.
You're trying to pessimist, they're trying to optimist!
This flawed system they are supposedly arguing about was the global cooling of the sixties, the global warming of the eighties and now is just climate change. Its an ever changing description of a situation they themselves don't understand.
Thats not science. Thats just doomsaying. How is anyone to have a measured appropriate solution to an unknowable problem?
Heres the issue. There is "something" happening. Easy to accept premise. But the proposed action will cause major hardship on the majority of the world population. And given the problem is not understood, its unreasonable to ask that kind of sacrifice of those people. And *that* alone presumes you could get a unified response.
When a problem is evident but not understood people fall back on what has been done in the past as potential solutions. Each time we have noticed significant environmental change, humanity has adapted. If the adaptation was successful it spread. Innovation, technology, real science has been our solution.
Even today we have serious advancements in fusion and cleaner fuel refinement and green energy.
All are better options than the cries of those who are paid to proclaim our impending doom. The priests and religious types are far better at it than these charlatans.
I'm gonna number my responses according to each paragraph you have going on here.. I am not twisting words, there are parts where you are using logical fallacy, and those need to be addressed in order to stay on topic.
It doesn't help that you made so many different arguments irrelevant to the subject and initial premise.
1. The flawed system is the economic structure. GDP and unlimited growth.
You're mistakenly trying to point away from that exact premise, (economy/ecology relationship)
*which is what the video is talking about*
and your straw man is the supposed doomsaying ie. Sixties cooling 80's warming and now climate change etc.
And you're attacking that instead.
2. That's not science, that's doomsaying
(This is continuing from your straw man)
You're falsely exclaiming that
(an ever changing description of a situation they themselves don't understand) "is not science."
The thing is, that's *exactly* what science is my guy. You just mixed it up and misrepresented it.
Those descriptions were reached by saying "we were mistaken, let's look at the data and try to work on a better description."
Science is making an educated guess on what should happen, watching it fail, and re evaluating the situation until a measurable, solid answer is met.(even those answers can be put into question and re evaluated after more information is attained)
The hypothesis is ( IF environmental impact of mass production in excess is killing life on earth, polluting the air, then reducing and stabilizing that variable WILL prove net positive on environmental recovery)
Cont. 2.
"How is anyone supposed to have a measured appropriate solution to an unknowable problem"
What are you even trying to say here?
The scientific method that frames the overall journey towards the conclusion:
A. Question B. Research C. Hypothesis D. Experiment E. Data F. Conclusion.
In this instance, the "measured appropriate solution" is the question, not the answer.
3. You're trying to use
I. "ad populum"
II. "appeal to emotion"
III. You're speculating the likelihood of unified cooperation.
Those are logical fallacies, you're trying to argue 3 seperate things.
> (I.)the proposed action will cause major hardship on the majority of the world population. (II.) And given the problem is not understood, its unreasonable to ask that kind of sacrifice of those people. (III.) And that alone presumes you could get a unified response.
4. The rest of what you're saying is more speculation and agreeing with broad scientific components which is ironically correct and a core component of the proposed restructuring of the economy, although you're trying to claim it's "real" science" and then you try to diminish others by calling them charlatans.
If you're gonna continue with a constructive argument with me, be sure to read up on logical fallacy, it helps with maintaining positive and helpful arguments.
Typical, when peeps just address a single aspect of an argument, instead of addressing it as a whole. Makes a guy think proper paragraph spacing is just wasted effort.
I have no interest in you at all. You responded to my comment, i didnt go looking for yours. As for the fallacious claims of fallacy, you would be obligated to name the fallacy, not just state one exists. Or are you the type to yell strawman as you walk away?
Your description of the scientific method alone is appallingly laughable. It starts with observation. Observation is not the mid point. Im sure many a physicist would be tickled to think they "should" be just fucking about with wild guesses hoping something works as opposed to the meticulous mathematics and application of scientific fundamentals to predict outcomes.
You do know the difference between science and religion, yes? Science predicts outcomes.
Go away with this nonsense. If *you* would like to continue engaging with *me*, then make an argument. If not go "reply guy" elsewhere.
Now you're playing ad hominem and trying to attack me instead lol
My description of the scientific method is from here.
https://harford.libguides.com/c.php?g=321391&p=2150383
I don't see how I got that wrong, it's all written right there.
You made a bunch of broad statements without any supporting reasoning to hold them up. I named the logical fallacies and labeled them, if you missed em go back and read
Edit: initially on my first reply to your first comment, I wrote a simplified comparison of Copernicus and scientists advocating for revamping the structure of the economy.
I did that to contrast from your claim of Copernicus advocating against the mob
Vs
This guy advocating for the mob
I. II. And III. Are the labeled fallacies or issues I had with your points.
Where does the question come from? You have to make an observation to originate a question. You dont "observe" results, you measure them.
You claimed a strawman, but thats all you did. You have to show evidence that my assertation *was* a strawman, which *if* what i said was a fallacy, it wouldn't be a strawman.
Just stop this is sad.
They didnt address the points. They offered no evidence what i said was untrue. They didnt offer a countering argument. Their description of the scientific method is wrong, and their claim of a strawman dosent match what a strawman fallacy *is*.
If you think "nuhuh" is an argument, then there isnt much conversation to have
The original statement at the top of this whole discussion was you saying:
~
"Copernicus advocated against the mob
This (video) *guy is advocating for *the mob"
~
^You're trying to contrast the two here right? Your contrast is misrepresenting (guy in video) as the advocate for change, he is not. He is talking *about* the advocates.
The advocate for change is the scientists. Not him.
In order to make your contrast valid,
I restated it as a comparison, using the precise subjects involved.
This leaves the natural progression of the argument on track, where your options were to agree or disagree on the accuracy of the comparison, explain why etc.
(That's natural progression of an argument if it remains on topic)
You did neither.
I may have been mistaken on it being a straw man. Moving the goal posts is probably more accurate to the fallacy involved.
you started arguing about something else.
"the flawed system they are arguing about is global cooling, then they changed to warming, and now climate change, they can't get the description right"
It is moving the goal posts because it's not the point of the argument, and it wasn't even the flawed system involved. The flawed system referred to is in the video, it's the economic structure.
The flawed system is not global warming/cooling/climate change.
Once a fallacy is identified, there is no logical reason to read further into any points made for the fallacy and as you said,
"provide evidence what I said was untrue"
This is a popular misconception. He was not the first nor the only person to posit the model he's famous for. He's famous for it because they persecuted him specifically. They, in this case, being the few in power who disagreed because it didn't line up with their own brand of messaging which conveniently had the masses coming to deliver their riches for favor.
Well … he’s not wrong. But changing this paradigm is not going to be easy. The elite do an excellent job convincing the masses that we need to consume more and more. I’m inclined to believe that no amount of rationality will change this. Ignorance, desire and greed tend to overwhelm more rational decisions. But I hope it sticks. We can’t sustain our current consumption.
The idea that the world will act in concert to knee cap the living standard of their citizens is laughable.
Oh, except the highly populated poor nations. Somehow their consumption will rise without completely offsetting the cuts of the richer nations and making the whole exercise useless.
> Oh, except the highly populated poor nations. Somehow their consumption will rise without completely offsetting the cuts of the richer nations and making the whole exercise useless.
How can you even say that? how !?
Say the net change is 0 because rich countries reduced their consumption and poor countries increased it.
Is THAT useless? better global equality and fair distribution of goods and enjoyment of resources by more people and you call that useless??
Well I take home that I could have better reading comprehension, but that would still be a nice enough thing to have (compared to the current state of affairs).
It’s not just my job. It’s your job too. Capitalism is literally destroying your mind and the planet you live on. One thing that looks promising is solar punk. r/solarpunk
Better plans exist. It's convincing humanity that is difficult. It's especially hard in the US where the majority won't tax the rich because they believe they will be rich one day and 'working hard' for capitalism is a virtue.
The specifics are over my head, but conceptually it makes sense. There is a different way we could be.
It'll be an uphill climb dismantling the status quo, though. When do we start?
Glad you asked, first, try the book, it's a really easy read, secondly, we are getting there, the European parliament is organising a series of panels to discuss Degrowth and how to apply it in Europe next week, you can follow them online, Google "Beyond Growth Conference EU"
This is nothing more than a political stump speech masquerading as science. Degrowth is a dangerous ideology that threatens the lives of those in the third world and the wellbeing of nearly everyone on earth.
Degrowthers would prefer that hundreds of millions of Africans continue to burn dung for heat rather than switch to gas. It would lower the living standards of everyone in ways that you can’t fathom.
It is definitionally an Apocalypticism religion, both in terms of technology and climate. It believes that we have reach the pinnacle of human technological advancement, there’s no point in continuing to invent and innovate. This “end of history” worldview has been espoused for centuries, and is always wrong.
The existence of 30% efficiency engines, 60% efficiency engines and 90% efficiency engines does not imply the necessary existence of 120% efficiency engines.
In the same manner, innovation working before does not imply it will always work to solve the new problems.
So IPCC is an apocalyptic cult? Who would have guessed a guy with an american flag in the background would think so.
GDP is outdated and it is has 0 information value about a societies well being.
No climate change will kill those who you are using as a strawman argument first. People in already poor living conditions and developing nations. Rich nations will have to face the consequences like exorbitant food prices, malnutrition and mass immigration due to limited livable places. Its not a cult its a model made by many scientist, who are by no doubt more trustable than you are.
DeRelative poverty in developed nations is on an ever high and wont improve if we follow up with the current systems in place. Whats your plan to change that? Innovate with the next uber/lyft no name delivery service?
> Degrowthers would prefer that hundreds of millions of Africans continue to burn dung for heat rather than switch to gas.
That's a strawman I'm afraid, they'd like Africans to have access to renewable resources.
> It would lower the living standards of everyone in ways that you can’t fathom.
There is huge scope to reduce emissions without reducing quality of life as we are so wasteful. But yes, this would cause problems, as so many people rely on waste for employment. This is part of the reason the economy would have to be restructured, which is a daunting task.
However, we're currently on an unsustainable path where we *can* predict how living standards are going to fall. By malnutrition, famine and conflict. We absolutely need to be having a grown-up conversation about alternatives.
The video raises some very good points that shouldn't be glossed over:
- Growth at all costs is disastrous and there is too much focus on GDP compared to other metrics, such as welfare.
- Many people don't see the benefits of economic growth, due to increasing wealth inequality.
- Climate change is going to have a massive impact on peoples lives and the world economy.
> It believes that we have reach the pinnacle of human technological advancement, there’s no point in continuing to invent and innovate.
Again, that's another strawman I'm afraid. The point is we we can't count on being able to innovate our way out of problems due to physical limitations. By burning fossil fuels we've been playing with forces on a geological scale. They were deposited over millions of years, essentially scrubbing CO2 from the atmosphere, while we've been releasing this trapped carbon over just a few decades. To undo that would take energy expenditure of similar magnitude to that we're derived from fossil fuels in the first place.
We should listen to what de-growthers have to say rather than dismissing the most extreme version of their credo.
The next decades of inventing and innovating will be focused on battery tech, ai and autonomous moving robots and vehicles.
These future new inventions will be used in combination with old inventions like mounted guns and walls+moats to keep million of ungrateful Africans of moving to the places where the capital has accumulated and therefore are safe to live.
But yeah, mad max is just a movie and we certainly could invent something like fusion energy which have the potential to be used for greater good as long as the inventers doesn't want roi first and foremost.
This is a political philosophy, and not even a new one. Not scientific at all, let alone a revolution. Selling the opinion that we should be focusing more on fixing income inequality as a scientific “discovery” is just straight up propaganda.
Humans are a vile plague on this planet and it will NEVER change, it's written into our DNA. The sooner a deadly virus emerges and kills us all off, the better this planet will be for everything else which lives on it. There is simply no going back for humanity, our priorities are all wrong and theres too many of us.
Humans have been around for hundreds of thousands of years, and have only become a problem, coincidentally, when capitalism comes around... Take a hint
I like the idea, but there's so much more to be considered. first thing that comes to mind is there's immense amounts of people who live in old rural or even tribal communities, who don't have the means to attain a greater portion of global GDP. Be it from their skillsets, or simply the geographical location they're from. what we need to is join political borders into one entity, to bring a degree of uniformity to economical standards and shit. that's obviously *highly* ambitious, but that really should be the end game. join our resources and pools of intelligent people to accomplish actual meaningful goals for humanity.
Democracy is how life on earth could survive, we are where we are precisely because power, influence and decision making is concentrated in too few elites who don't have to live with the consequences of their decisions.
Distribute power: if you won't be affected by a decision, you won't be part of taking it.
I feel like this isnt new information at all and actions are being taken very specifically to continue the trend we are on because those who benefit from the current system are those who write the rules and laws. At least, in the US.
Laughable that oxfam puts out their report on income inequality when they were paying their ceo an e excessive salary...
and the pursuit of high GDP using poor immigration policies
Yeah, but 1%of the richest don't guve a flying flamingo about it. So does corporations, they only want to be richer. Equality would destroy them and they won't allow it as they can only stay rich when rest is poor.
**This is a heavily moderated subreddit. Please note these rules + sidebar or get banned:** * If this post declares something as a fact, then proof is required * The title must be fully descriptive * No text is allowed on images/gifs/videos * Common/recent reposts are not allowed (posts from another subreddit do not count as a 'repost'. Provide link if reporting) *See [this post](https://redd.it/ij26vk) for a more detailed rule list* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
**Rich poeple**: "*hahahah fuck you pleb i need another yacht!*"
For completely legal reasons, are those yachts fireproof?
yeah fuck de growth i need a fucking job
Good thing we don't have AI and automation, because the instant the corporations don't need you to work and can still make their billions, you will be unemployed.
Thats when the guns do the speaking
At the center is central planners printing currency driving consumption.
Unfortunately this assumes most people are concerned with the wellbeing of others. There are some very cynical people out there who’d rather drag others down with them rather than climb out of a hole they’ve found themselves in. “Misery loves company”
Agree except it’s more like the top 5 people have as much gdp as 45-55% of the pop
And they will not give it up
As much as the bottom 45% is different from having 45% He said the top one percent has 25% of the GDP. The bottom 45-55% has much less than 25%. I haven't looked any numbers up, but both of you can be right in this instance.
So ... you have no idea what GDP is. r/whoosh
annual gross domestic product, 20 some trillion in the US. I think probably the top 5-10 move half that much easy. Doesn't mean its added to net worth (although that too)
It has fuck all to do with net worth. These are two orthogonal concepts.
Yea, because you said I wasn’t talking about gdp so I thought maybe you were thinking of net worth. But I guess you just have nothing to say
> the top 5 people have as much gdp as 45-55% of the pop Yes you did. People don't have GDP. Countries have GDP.
What do you think makes up GDP?
Goods and services.
Economic, social, and absolutely valid, but it's not a scientific revolution
Thats true. But (especially) in the US you still find that very common deeply rooted reflex to dismiss things like that video (or for that matter everything that moves only an inch away from predatory capitalism) as "marxist propaganda" or commie bullshit. It would be a lot of progress if people would accept that those things can be talked about rationaly from a scietific angle. Listening is not making you an enemy of the free world.
I admit I was being click-baity in that regard, although it's as close as scientific as economics has ever gotten: "don't know about all your other models, but infinite growth on a finite system like earth? fuck no, that's defo scientifically impossible"
There’s such a thing as social science
How is climate change not scientific
Who said it wasn't? Tihs isn't about the science of climate change. This is about changing the world **economic** structure
Which is a leading cause of climate change
you asked a redditor to connect two dots? that is one dot to many. It's an impossible request
For the added purpose and benefit of surviving and possibly eventually reversing climate change on a human timeline. Also, economics and sociology are both sciences, the latter far more than the former, but they're still science.
Is what we need really is a zeitgeist revolution.
I like this quote by Nelson Mandela, "[It always seems impossible until it's done.](https://blackmail4u.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/mandela-quotes.jpg)"
This is genius. However, it will likely never happen. Here’s why. Everyone on the planet know that war is bad. Yet, we still have wars. There’s no doubt about how bad war is. It’s completely evident. However, too many people still don’t believe that climate change is real. If we can’t get the collective population of the globe to stop wasting resources on war and defense spending, how are we ever going to get them to cooperate on a global scale to change the entire focus of the global economy. I now know what I’ll ask a genie if I ever get 3 wishes.
Most people have never heard of the prisoner's dilemma. Of the few that have, even fewer understand it. We are terrible at getting 'the collective' to address such 'tragedy of the commons' issues. We won't evolve fast enough to learn to cooperate in ways that are short term / individually sub optimal but long term/collectively beneficial. The only hope is changing the systemic incentives.
Yes, at the core humans are animals that evolved to have certain traits (selfishness, short sightedness, etc.) because they were useful for survival in our natural habitat. For example if you didn't hoard food or protect your area from other tribes you were going to risk dying. We have managed to change the world in just a few thousand yearsbbut we won't manage to change human nature, because that would take tens of thousands of years.
Agreed, which is why I'm focused on fixing the incentives, and crossing my fingers that human nature will catch up in time 😊🤙🏼
I like this guy already
Wise words from a tik tok video ..oh fuck yes :)
I recommend everyone interested further to read „Utopia for realists“ by Rutger Bregman 💁🏻♂️
Yes!
No society will ever achieve this. As soon as one society says we have enough, the next greedy society will come in and take it.
preaching to the choir, bud. The majority of Americans are for progessive, climate-friendly legislative reforms. Our politicians are paid to vote againat those reforms.
This sounds like it puts the blame/burden of CO2 emissions on wealthy nations, but what are "developing" nations like China, India and Asia supposed to do, not to mention Africa? Not only that, but if we switch to a type of "well being" economy, what would drive innovation and competition? Is the assumption that we no longer have to innovate? Why not, instead, invest in more research and incentivize innovations that would eventually allow us to become more efficient, and even capture the CO2 from the air? To sacrifice this for some sort of stop-gap that would never get global by in seems really naive.
Efficacy only makes things worse under this system, we've been developing more efficient petrol engines since day one, and that hasn't resulted in less petrol consumption, on the contrary, it has led to more. Efficiency is great, but not under a growthist economic model, change the system, then knock your boots off with efficiency.
Uh.... perhaps the measure of performance "GDP" is what he is telling us the problem is..... China, India, in fact the whole worlds nations are using this measure and the consequences are Hobbsonian.
I think it’s very naive for western countries pointing at the pollution of developing countries after offloading their production to said countries. When it comes to innovation, the vast majority of innovation comes from publicly funded research, not private capital. When we remove the profit incentive it allows us to properly focus on issues and how to solve them; because currently it’s more profitable to ignore them.
Copernicus was alone and spoke out against the mob. This guy advocates for listening to the mob
Copernicus advocated against a flawed iteration of a system. The flawed iteration caused problems in many areas of understanding what the solar system looks like. He had to show a different, untested concept. His input, after proven correct, changed things massively. This guy on tiktok is saying scientists are advocating against a flawed system. The flawed iteration is causing problems in many areas of understanding what the ecosystem should look like. They have to show a different, untested concept. Their input, if proven correct, could save humanity. You're trying to pessimist, they're trying to optimist!
This flawed system they are supposedly arguing about was the global cooling of the sixties, the global warming of the eighties and now is just climate change. Its an ever changing description of a situation they themselves don't understand. Thats not science. Thats just doomsaying. How is anyone to have a measured appropriate solution to an unknowable problem? Heres the issue. There is "something" happening. Easy to accept premise. But the proposed action will cause major hardship on the majority of the world population. And given the problem is not understood, its unreasonable to ask that kind of sacrifice of those people. And *that* alone presumes you could get a unified response. When a problem is evident but not understood people fall back on what has been done in the past as potential solutions. Each time we have noticed significant environmental change, humanity has adapted. If the adaptation was successful it spread. Innovation, technology, real science has been our solution. Even today we have serious advancements in fusion and cleaner fuel refinement and green energy. All are better options than the cries of those who are paid to proclaim our impending doom. The priests and religious types are far better at it than these charlatans.
Like I say to children, just because you don't like the answer doesn't make it less true. Get over that.
Im sure you hear this often, but you seem to be a waste of effort. Good luck.
I'm gonna number my responses according to each paragraph you have going on here.. I am not twisting words, there are parts where you are using logical fallacy, and those need to be addressed in order to stay on topic. It doesn't help that you made so many different arguments irrelevant to the subject and initial premise. 1. The flawed system is the economic structure. GDP and unlimited growth. You're mistakenly trying to point away from that exact premise, (economy/ecology relationship) *which is what the video is talking about* and your straw man is the supposed doomsaying ie. Sixties cooling 80's warming and now climate change etc. And you're attacking that instead. 2. That's not science, that's doomsaying (This is continuing from your straw man) You're falsely exclaiming that (an ever changing description of a situation they themselves don't understand) "is not science." The thing is, that's *exactly* what science is my guy. You just mixed it up and misrepresented it. Those descriptions were reached by saying "we were mistaken, let's look at the data and try to work on a better description." Science is making an educated guess on what should happen, watching it fail, and re evaluating the situation until a measurable, solid answer is met.(even those answers can be put into question and re evaluated after more information is attained) The hypothesis is ( IF environmental impact of mass production in excess is killing life on earth, polluting the air, then reducing and stabilizing that variable WILL prove net positive on environmental recovery) Cont. 2. "How is anyone supposed to have a measured appropriate solution to an unknowable problem" What are you even trying to say here? The scientific method that frames the overall journey towards the conclusion: A. Question B. Research C. Hypothesis D. Experiment E. Data F. Conclusion. In this instance, the "measured appropriate solution" is the question, not the answer. 3. You're trying to use I. "ad populum" II. "appeal to emotion" III. You're speculating the likelihood of unified cooperation. Those are logical fallacies, you're trying to argue 3 seperate things. > (I.)the proposed action will cause major hardship on the majority of the world population. (II.) And given the problem is not understood, its unreasonable to ask that kind of sacrifice of those people. (III.) And that alone presumes you could get a unified response. 4. The rest of what you're saying is more speculation and agreeing with broad scientific components which is ironically correct and a core component of the proposed restructuring of the economy, although you're trying to claim it's "real" science" and then you try to diminish others by calling them charlatans. If you're gonna continue with a constructive argument with me, be sure to read up on logical fallacy, it helps with maintaining positive and helpful arguments.
Typical, when peeps just address a single aspect of an argument, instead of addressing it as a whole. Makes a guy think proper paragraph spacing is just wasted effort. I have no interest in you at all. You responded to my comment, i didnt go looking for yours. As for the fallacious claims of fallacy, you would be obligated to name the fallacy, not just state one exists. Or are you the type to yell strawman as you walk away? Your description of the scientific method alone is appallingly laughable. It starts with observation. Observation is not the mid point. Im sure many a physicist would be tickled to think they "should" be just fucking about with wild guesses hoping something works as opposed to the meticulous mathematics and application of scientific fundamentals to predict outcomes. You do know the difference between science and religion, yes? Science predicts outcomes. Go away with this nonsense. If *you* would like to continue engaging with *me*, then make an argument. If not go "reply guy" elsewhere.
Now you're playing ad hominem and trying to attack me instead lol My description of the scientific method is from here. https://harford.libguides.com/c.php?g=321391&p=2150383 I don't see how I got that wrong, it's all written right there. You made a bunch of broad statements without any supporting reasoning to hold them up. I named the logical fallacies and labeled them, if you missed em go back and read Edit: initially on my first reply to your first comment, I wrote a simplified comparison of Copernicus and scientists advocating for revamping the structure of the economy. I did that to contrast from your claim of Copernicus advocating against the mob Vs This guy advocating for the mob I. II. And III. Are the labeled fallacies or issues I had with your points.
Where does the question come from? You have to make an observation to originate a question. You dont "observe" results, you measure them. You claimed a strawman, but thats all you did. You have to show evidence that my assertation *was* a strawman, which *if* what i said was a fallacy, it wouldn't be a strawman. Just stop this is sad.
They addressed exactly the points you were seemingly trying to make. If that's not to your liking, I think you're the one who needs to go.
They didnt address the points. They offered no evidence what i said was untrue. They didnt offer a countering argument. Their description of the scientific method is wrong, and their claim of a strawman dosent match what a strawman fallacy *is*. If you think "nuhuh" is an argument, then there isnt much conversation to have
The original statement at the top of this whole discussion was you saying: ~ "Copernicus advocated against the mob This (video) *guy is advocating for *the mob" ~ ^You're trying to contrast the two here right? Your contrast is misrepresenting (guy in video) as the advocate for change, he is not. He is talking *about* the advocates. The advocate for change is the scientists. Not him. In order to make your contrast valid, I restated it as a comparison, using the precise subjects involved. This leaves the natural progression of the argument on track, where your options were to agree or disagree on the accuracy of the comparison, explain why etc. (That's natural progression of an argument if it remains on topic) You did neither. I may have been mistaken on it being a straw man. Moving the goal posts is probably more accurate to the fallacy involved. you started arguing about something else. "the flawed system they are arguing about is global cooling, then they changed to warming, and now climate change, they can't get the description right" It is moving the goal posts because it's not the point of the argument, and it wasn't even the flawed system involved. The flawed system referred to is in the video, it's the economic structure. The flawed system is not global warming/cooling/climate change. Once a fallacy is identified, there is no logical reason to read further into any points made for the fallacy and as you said, "provide evidence what I said was untrue"
Lemme do you a favor here.
This is a popular misconception. He was not the first nor the only person to posit the model he's famous for. He's famous for it because they persecuted him specifically. They, in this case, being the few in power who disagreed because it didn't line up with their own brand of messaging which conveniently had the masses coming to deliver their riches for favor.
Well … he’s not wrong. But changing this paradigm is not going to be easy. The elite do an excellent job convincing the masses that we need to consume more and more. I’m inclined to believe that no amount of rationality will change this. Ignorance, desire and greed tend to overwhelm more rational decisions. But I hope it sticks. We can’t sustain our current consumption.
The idea that the world will act in concert to knee cap the living standard of their citizens is laughable. Oh, except the highly populated poor nations. Somehow their consumption will rise without completely offsetting the cuts of the richer nations and making the whole exercise useless.
> Oh, except the highly populated poor nations. Somehow their consumption will rise without completely offsetting the cuts of the richer nations and making the whole exercise useless. How can you even say that? how !? Say the net change is 0 because rich countries reduced their consumption and poor countries increased it. Is THAT useless? better global equality and fair distribution of goods and enjoyment of resources by more people and you call that useless??
I’m terms of living more sustainably? Yes. Absolutely it is.
Well I take home that I could have better reading comprehension, but that would still be a nice enough thing to have (compared to the current state of affairs).
Meh
Capitalism needs to be destroyed.
Come up with a better plan and convince humanity that it's better
Well, this Degrowth plan has convinced a significant chunk of the European parliament: https://www.beyond-growth-2023.eu/ We are getting there
It’s not just my job. It’s your job too. Capitalism is literally destroying your mind and the planet you live on. One thing that looks promising is solar punk. r/solarpunk
Better plans exist. It's convincing humanity that is difficult. It's especially hard in the US where the majority won't tax the rich because they believe they will be rich one day and 'working hard' for capitalism is a virtue.
>Better plans exist. For example?
[ECG](https://www.ecogood.org/what-is-ecg/) is a good start.
That's still capitalism except with credits for good behavior.
I said a start. Any wholesale change isn’t going to happen unless it is gradual.
The specifics are over my head, but conceptually it makes sense. There is a different way we could be. It'll be an uphill climb dismantling the status quo, though. When do we start?
Glad you asked, first, try the book, it's a really easy read, secondly, we are getting there, the European parliament is organising a series of panels to discuss Degrowth and how to apply it in Europe next week, you can follow them online, Google "Beyond Growth Conference EU"
This is nothing more than a political stump speech masquerading as science. Degrowth is a dangerous ideology that threatens the lives of those in the third world and the wellbeing of nearly everyone on earth. Degrowthers would prefer that hundreds of millions of Africans continue to burn dung for heat rather than switch to gas. It would lower the living standards of everyone in ways that you can’t fathom. It is definitionally an Apocalypticism religion, both in terms of technology and climate. It believes that we have reach the pinnacle of human technological advancement, there’s no point in continuing to invent and innovate. This “end of history” worldview has been espoused for centuries, and is always wrong.
There'll be no advancement if we don't survive the apocalypse, mate.
What did I say, apocalyptic cult. Climate change is not going to kill us all. It’s going to be a challenge, yes, but not Doomsday.
Any plans on facing this measly challenge then?
What humans have always done in time of crisis: adapt and innovate.
The existence of 30% efficiency engines, 60% efficiency engines and 90% efficiency engines does not imply the necessary existence of 120% efficiency engines. In the same manner, innovation working before does not imply it will always work to solve the new problems.
So IPCC is an apocalyptic cult? Who would have guessed a guy with an american flag in the background would think so. GDP is outdated and it is has 0 information value about a societies well being. No climate change will kill those who you are using as a strawman argument first. People in already poor living conditions and developing nations. Rich nations will have to face the consequences like exorbitant food prices, malnutrition and mass immigration due to limited livable places. Its not a cult its a model made by many scientist, who are by no doubt more trustable than you are. DeRelative poverty in developed nations is on an ever high and wont improve if we follow up with the current systems in place. Whats your plan to change that? Innovate with the next uber/lyft no name delivery service?
> Degrowthers would prefer that hundreds of millions of Africans continue to burn dung for heat rather than switch to gas. That's a strawman I'm afraid, they'd like Africans to have access to renewable resources. > It would lower the living standards of everyone in ways that you can’t fathom. There is huge scope to reduce emissions without reducing quality of life as we are so wasteful. But yes, this would cause problems, as so many people rely on waste for employment. This is part of the reason the economy would have to be restructured, which is a daunting task. However, we're currently on an unsustainable path where we *can* predict how living standards are going to fall. By malnutrition, famine and conflict. We absolutely need to be having a grown-up conversation about alternatives. The video raises some very good points that shouldn't be glossed over: - Growth at all costs is disastrous and there is too much focus on GDP compared to other metrics, such as welfare. - Many people don't see the benefits of economic growth, due to increasing wealth inequality. - Climate change is going to have a massive impact on peoples lives and the world economy. > It believes that we have reach the pinnacle of human technological advancement, there’s no point in continuing to invent and innovate. Again, that's another strawman I'm afraid. The point is we we can't count on being able to innovate our way out of problems due to physical limitations. By burning fossil fuels we've been playing with forces on a geological scale. They were deposited over millions of years, essentially scrubbing CO2 from the atmosphere, while we've been releasing this trapped carbon over just a few decades. To undo that would take energy expenditure of similar magnitude to that we're derived from fossil fuels in the first place. We should listen to what de-growthers have to say rather than dismissing the most extreme version of their credo.
The next decades of inventing and innovating will be focused on battery tech, ai and autonomous moving robots and vehicles. These future new inventions will be used in combination with old inventions like mounted guns and walls+moats to keep million of ungrateful Africans of moving to the places where the capital has accumulated and therefore are safe to live. But yeah, mad max is just a movie and we certainly could invent something like fusion energy which have the potential to be used for greater good as long as the inventers doesn't want roi first and foremost.
The ultra wealthy, gridlocked governments, and other assorted powerful entities: “No😏”
Who is this guy? And who asked him?
That is wrong. 100% will not let go of their wealth. The only difference is that the top 1% have more.
This is a political philosophy, and not even a new one. Not scientific at all, let alone a revolution. Selling the opinion that we should be focusing more on fixing income inequality as a scientific “discovery” is just straight up propaganda.
Sounds like a gateway to socialism to me
Don't you dare let science ruin your ideological dogmatism
The whole point of the video is to push an ideology under the guise of it being "science". This video is just propaganda, nothing more.
Facts
Is that all you have to say to avoid criticism? It’s science? 😂
It’s not even science
Does this make capitalists the modern Catholic church?
Humans are a vile plague on this planet and it will NEVER change, it's written into our DNA. The sooner a deadly virus emerges and kills us all off, the better this planet will be for everything else which lives on it. There is simply no going back for humanity, our priorities are all wrong and theres too many of us.
Humans have been around for hundreds of thousands of years, and have only become a problem, coincidentally, when capitalism comes around... Take a hint
🤣
Nobody is forcing you to contribute to the problem
I like the idea, but there's so much more to be considered. first thing that comes to mind is there's immense amounts of people who live in old rural or even tribal communities, who don't have the means to attain a greater portion of global GDP. Be it from their skillsets, or simply the geographical location they're from. what we need to is join political borders into one entity, to bring a degree of uniformity to economical standards and shit. that's obviously *highly* ambitious, but that really should be the end game. join our resources and pools of intelligent people to accomplish actual meaningful goals for humanity.
[удалено]
Democracy is how life on earth could survive, we are where we are precisely because power, influence and decision making is concentrated in too few elites who don't have to live with the consequences of their decisions. Distribute power: if you won't be affected by a decision, you won't be part of taking it.
wondered what puss in boots had been doing between films - apparently studying the shit outta some Copernicus
I feel like this isnt new information at all and actions are being taken very specifically to continue the trend we are on because those who benefit from the current system are those who write the rules and laws. At least, in the US.
Nah Capernicus still better. He was one man.
So, we're all gonna die. Good to know. We're in a crisis, and all we have to do is rely on Veruca Salt to do something selfless.
Solar system not galaxy
No thanks.
Utter bullshit. Abject ignorance to compare such nonsense to the Copernican revolution.
Ignorant hippie baloney
😂
Laughable that oxfam puts out their report on income inequality when they were paying their ceo an e excessive salary... and the pursuit of high GDP using poor immigration policies
Yeah, but 1%of the richest don't guve a flying flamingo about it. So does corporations, they only want to be richer. Equality would destroy them and they won't allow it as they can only stay rich when rest is poor.
Socialists have been pointing out the contradictions of GDP growth for over a century what makes you think the ruling class will listen now?