Lloyd, I really think you should be complaining about the media. If we have a media that lies about what a political opponent says or does, what makes you think that the people will listen to them about anything else.
You wrote: In the Province of Alberta, you can’t get a COVID booster shot. According to the Tyee, “Alberta’s anti-vax UCP government won’t be distributing COVID and flu vaccines to family doctors this fall.”
You overstate the case.
Our few doctors are already swamped with work. I'm far from defending the UCP, but my wife and I got our extra-strength influenza vaccines and COVID-19 booster on two days notice from our pharmacy. Soon we will be able to get our RSV vaccination (a two-week gap is required between vaccinations), also from our pharmacist.
"...The greatness of America is founded on science."
He's utterly wrong. There are Four Pillars to the American Experiment, our Constitutional Republic:
- Free Speech
- Freedom of Expression
- The Right to Private Property and Contract
-The Rule of Law
- The Right to Private Contract
Without those 4 interlocking philosophies, there would never have been an American Declaration of Independence nor our Constitution that has stood the trials and tribulations of time (even with Progressives trying to defenestrate it rather often).
The greatness, in short, stems from the enormous study of history, politics, economics, and the ever-yearning to be Free by our (rather young) Founders that created the best sociological document to prevent the aggregation of Power by n'err-do-wells seeking to undo self-government and return us to a form of neo-feudalism (think: a combination of The Strong Man and The Divine Rights of Kings).
Also, make no mistake about it, it also has to do with EMOTION (on both sides of the aisle) as science is oft cast aside in the heat of the battle politic. Yes, facts matter, but so do hearts. "Have less, do less, be less" is a direct attack on the emotion of Aspiration - the will to do more and be better.
If the greatness of America is founded on science then America is boned.
There's a crisis of science today in the "publish-or-die" aspect of non-reproducible, dial-in-your-own-desired-conclusion scientific studies being mass produced for clout and monetary purposes. Sabine Hossfelder has, on her YouTube account, addressed the pressing concern of what is a failure of science on more than one occasion—and since all of the scientific studies surrounding climate change uses the same curated (and manipulated) data sets maintained by NOAA and NASA, it's unsurprising that the same results keep being "proven." It's more telling that those entities don't explain the how or why of revising historical data to cool the past and warm the present, only that we peons are to trust the scientists and their supposed altruism.
I, for one, remain skeptical—as should everyone, even of the experts.
>>"Like the President-elect, they claim climate change is a hoax."
I think the term 'hoax' should be better defined. In my opinion it's not in the traditional sense of 'it doesn't exist at all' but rather 'it's not underpinning everything we see or experience in the world today' and it most *certainly* isn't 'the existential crisis which will require modern Western developed nations to necessarily reduce their standard of living by 75% so that carbon equity for developing nations can be achieved' as proposed by the likes of the UN, WEF, Bill Gates, Antonio Gutierrez, and others. Why do I say that? Because of these two lines:
>>"I will be writing more about the economic benefits of a sufficiency lifestyle and “How a life of just enough offers a way out of the climate crisis.” It also happens to be a lot cheaper."
In a world where a person living the sufficiency lifestyle yields the *personal* economic benefit of not having to spend his or her money on "stuff" they don't need, the labor they DO engage in would necessarily not need as much compensation either. In other words, we would see an economic downward spiral of people not consuming, producers not producing, and work not being done (or required.) It would make Japan's economic stagnation of the past 30 years look mild and enviable in comparison. What work would humans do to fill the void of time that working less would yield? A person can only do so many leisure activities, to say nothing of the socialization and creativity relevance which work provides to the human psyche. Musk envisions TEN BILLION Optimus humanoid robots by 2040 doing everything from walking the dog to cleaning the house and more. Is that the kind of future we want for ourselves, when we will literally not have to *DO* anything but be leisurely? Is Disney's dystopian future from "WALL-E" our inevitable destiny? I don't think so. I think the idea of so many humanoid robots is to make people redundant and unnecessary, which would then allow a great purge of the undesirable (and expensive) species that's causing so much disruption to the global climate system.
Some would consider that a crackpot conspiracy theory, but as recent history has proven (COVID-19 did not originate in a wet market of Wuhan but escaped from the Wuhan Virology Lab, natural infection and recovery conveyed superior immunity than from vaccination, lockdowns and masking did not slow viral transmission, children under age 18 were not equally at risk as older and sicker adults, to name but a few) conspiracy theories in the modern age tend to be rooted in truth far more than what "scientists" would have us otherwise believe. Even if it is ridiculous to prognosticate on what the eventual goal of having robots and AI do all the thinking and labor for humans in the future would be for, we should be asking ourselves, "At what cost, and why?" Without being able to adequately address those questions and providing a positive answer in the affirmative, maybe we shouldn't be running headlong into that unknown abyss.
Life is busy, life is complex, things are changing but the one constant is economic. Follow the money, don't stand in the way of making more money. Economics has always been the main thread in this world tapestry. While there are many different economic theories and application of these theories, changes are not well understood and often fearful. Hankering for the past when things were 'simpler' is a nostalgic myth. But, make no mistake, economics and politics are very much intertwined; economics and climate/weather change are very much intertwined. The economics of O&G for example are changing and affecting everyday life, so is energy generally, so is technology and yes these likewise are political. Changing approaches must consider both economics and politics. A market free-for-all without rules and guardrails would collapse.This should be an expectation. What's required is a less polarizing narrative that considers advantage for all. Now that's the hard part as economics has always been competitive.
"...What's required is a less polarizing narrative that considers advantage for all."
I would differ a bit from how you categorize it - "Narrative" is just another euphemism (at least nowadays) for Public Relations - the process and messaging to persuade others of your message and intent to have others do something they otherwise wouldn't. You know, "advertising" which gets a bum rap when Big Corporations do it. Sorry, it's just another part of politics (although I agree with your words on the "intertwining" parts).
Again, I'm seeing this a lot from the Progressives who lost - "we need a better Narrative" instead of realizing "what we're selling, no one wants". In large part, what they tried to sell ran counter to those OTHER peoples' ideas of what the "political marketplace" should be.
Here, in this post, this problem also appears.
I disagree with you, in large part, that "A market free-for-all without rules and guardrails would collapse.This should be an expectation." Some regulations are needed but "when is enough, enough?". A marketplace that is strangled by regulation also collapses. While manufacturers/consumers have their ideas of their wants and needs, there are too many in govt that keep generating more and more regulations; often in the simple reason of trying to self-justify their paychecks.
Or, in many cases, being that they are unchecked by the checks and balances of profit/loss determining the need for their services, continue to pile on yet more more regulation in a "well, that's what we do" without having to suffer the consequence of their decisions (but certainly other have to).
"...let’s worry about political change, that’s what matters most right now."
And yet, "I will not comment directly on the American election;" - and then put up the Gallup chart.
And yet, you keep insisting that you don't want to have this blogsite be political. I am starting (snicker) to detect a bit of cognitive dissonance; which are you, Lloyd? Environmentalist or political neophyte-in-training? Seeing the world as you wish, or seeing it, finally, as it is?
I also detect that you're not all that favoriting the fact that others hold to values not your own and you aren't liking them one little bit.
I will bring up the American election as with that line, the parallel is evident. Many Democrats, especially the Elites (both in politics and the talking head types) are blaming EVERYONE ELSE for their failure for not voting the way they dictated (and expected). Words like xenophobics, transphobics, misogynists, racists, white supremacists, et al, are being hurled in wide (and wild) abandon.
They have no clue except for a few that have calmly said "you're out of touch with your voters". Of course, they are being roundly excoriated for saying, what I believe, to be the truth. Yet, that IS the truth of the matter.
And you are now doing the same thing by calling everyone that doesn't agree with you "Know Nothings" to salve your feelings that you are not in the majority. Yet, Bob, VB, Coj1, and I have been warning you of this for quite some time. We've even offered you good advice, being your "Loyal Opposition", but it has gone unheeded.
Introspection, my man, introspection. Why AREN'T you reaching your target audience to persuade minds and hearts? Maybe because all what they are hearing are the same words that Hillary once said "We’re going to take things away from you” – Hillary Clinton, June 2004.
They don't want to hear "Have less, do less, be less" to make their betters feel even better about the yokes they are trying to place upon them, the plebes.
I have had more letters and nice comments about this post than any others I have written for a while. Now I wake up on my birthday to all of this. I think my present to myself today is to say I do not have to put up with this anymore.
I didn't know it was your birthday - HAPPY BIRTHDAY!
Lloyd, I have tried hard to write nicely but firmly. You posited a fact, I have merely replied to it. In fact, I've replied FAR more politely than the Wild Wild West days of Treehugger in a far more studied fashion.
But when you write "politically", did you not think that others would respond in a similar manner?
>>"...let’s worry about political change, that’s what matters most right now."
One has to ask himself what's meant by "political change" and how that would look. Does it mean electing representatives who share like ideologies, or does it mean electing leaders who will—through diktat and fiat—exert far more control over our daily lives by restricting freedoms of choice, whether economic or personal?
If a coalition of U.S. political leaders demanded that beef should be taxed into oblivion, or that citizens will be limited to two flights per lifetime (as hinted previously at being "necessary" to achieve net zero goals) those politicians will be expelled at the quickest opportunity, either through a referendum recall vote or at the ballot box during the next election cycle. Humans will never vote against their own self interest, especially when taxation is so vastly different between nations. I've said in the past that my not eating the zucchini I had purchased before it went to waste is not going to matter to someone from Bangladesh who is going to bed hungry tonight. Do we need to do something about inefficiencies? Sure, but as with anything there are always going to be limits. And politics simply can't meet those without becoming a draconian tyranny in the process.
Critical thinking skills seem to be lacking all over. Couple that with a desire to ignore unpleasant facts and we get "CO2 is essential for plant life, so we should put more CO2 into the atmosphere."
Agree about critical thinking skills lacking all over the world, but disagree on the relevance and applicability of "unpleasant facts" that remain unnamed.
The fact that these efforts emerge in different countries reflects the role of the internet and efforts by different governments to confuse western electorates and undermine perceived enemies. But I continue to muse on the “rats of NIMH” aspects and wonder how much human behavior now reflects underlying stresses and social pressures arising from the collapsing environment.
Lloyd, I really think you should be complaining about the media. If we have a media that lies about what a political opponent says or does, what makes you think that the people will listen to them about anything else.
You wrote: In the Province of Alberta, you can’t get a COVID booster shot. According to the Tyee, “Alberta’s anti-vax UCP government won’t be distributing COVID and flu vaccines to family doctors this fall.”
You overstate the case.
Our few doctors are already swamped with work. I'm far from defending the UCP, but my wife and I got our extra-strength influenza vaccines and COVID-19 booster on two days notice from our pharmacy. Soon we will be able to get our RSV vaccination (a two-week gap is required between vaccinations), also from our pharmacist.
"...The greatness of America is founded on science."
He's utterly wrong. There are Four Pillars to the American Experiment, our Constitutional Republic:
- Free Speech
- Freedom of Expression
- The Right to Private Property and Contract
-The Rule of Law
- The Right to Private Contract
Without those 4 interlocking philosophies, there would never have been an American Declaration of Independence nor our Constitution that has stood the trials and tribulations of time (even with Progressives trying to defenestrate it rather often).
The greatness, in short, stems from the enormous study of history, politics, economics, and the ever-yearning to be Free by our (rather young) Founders that created the best sociological document to prevent the aggregation of Power by n'err-do-wells seeking to undo self-government and return us to a form of neo-feudalism (think: a combination of The Strong Man and The Divine Rights of Kings).
Also, make no mistake about it, it also has to do with EMOTION (on both sides of the aisle) as science is oft cast aside in the heat of the battle politic. Yes, facts matter, but so do hearts. "Have less, do less, be less" is a direct attack on the emotion of Aspiration - the will to do more and be better.
So there's a partial answer to you.
If the greatness of America is founded on science then America is boned.
There's a crisis of science today in the "publish-or-die" aspect of non-reproducible, dial-in-your-own-desired-conclusion scientific studies being mass produced for clout and monetary purposes. Sabine Hossfelder has, on her YouTube account, addressed the pressing concern of what is a failure of science on more than one occasion—and since all of the scientific studies surrounding climate change uses the same curated (and manipulated) data sets maintained by NOAA and NASA, it's unsurprising that the same results keep being "proven." It's more telling that those entities don't explain the how or why of revising historical data to cool the past and warm the present, only that we peons are to trust the scientists and their supposed altruism.
I, for one, remain skeptical—as should everyone, even of the experts.
"If the greatness of America is founded on science then America is boned."
I would have to agree. What has science really done in the last 20 years? What new inventions?
>>"Like the President-elect, they claim climate change is a hoax."
I think the term 'hoax' should be better defined. In my opinion it's not in the traditional sense of 'it doesn't exist at all' but rather 'it's not underpinning everything we see or experience in the world today' and it most *certainly* isn't 'the existential crisis which will require modern Western developed nations to necessarily reduce their standard of living by 75% so that carbon equity for developing nations can be achieved' as proposed by the likes of the UN, WEF, Bill Gates, Antonio Gutierrez, and others. Why do I say that? Because of these two lines:
>>"I will be writing more about the economic benefits of a sufficiency lifestyle and “How a life of just enough offers a way out of the climate crisis.” It also happens to be a lot cheaper."
In a world where a person living the sufficiency lifestyle yields the *personal* economic benefit of not having to spend his or her money on "stuff" they don't need, the labor they DO engage in would necessarily not need as much compensation either. In other words, we would see an economic downward spiral of people not consuming, producers not producing, and work not being done (or required.) It would make Japan's economic stagnation of the past 30 years look mild and enviable in comparison. What work would humans do to fill the void of time that working less would yield? A person can only do so many leisure activities, to say nothing of the socialization and creativity relevance which work provides to the human psyche. Musk envisions TEN BILLION Optimus humanoid robots by 2040 doing everything from walking the dog to cleaning the house and more. Is that the kind of future we want for ourselves, when we will literally not have to *DO* anything but be leisurely? Is Disney's dystopian future from "WALL-E" our inevitable destiny? I don't think so. I think the idea of so many humanoid robots is to make people redundant and unnecessary, which would then allow a great purge of the undesirable (and expensive) species that's causing so much disruption to the global climate system.
Some would consider that a crackpot conspiracy theory, but as recent history has proven (COVID-19 did not originate in a wet market of Wuhan but escaped from the Wuhan Virology Lab, natural infection and recovery conveyed superior immunity than from vaccination, lockdowns and masking did not slow viral transmission, children under age 18 were not equally at risk as older and sicker adults, to name but a few) conspiracy theories in the modern age tend to be rooted in truth far more than what "scientists" would have us otherwise believe. Even if it is ridiculous to prognosticate on what the eventual goal of having robots and AI do all the thinking and labor for humans in the future would be for, we should be asking ourselves, "At what cost, and why?" Without being able to adequately address those questions and providing a positive answer in the affirmative, maybe we shouldn't be running headlong into that unknown abyss.
Life is busy, life is complex, things are changing but the one constant is economic. Follow the money, don't stand in the way of making more money. Economics has always been the main thread in this world tapestry. While there are many different economic theories and application of these theories, changes are not well understood and often fearful. Hankering for the past when things were 'simpler' is a nostalgic myth. But, make no mistake, economics and politics are very much intertwined; economics and climate/weather change are very much intertwined. The economics of O&G for example are changing and affecting everyday life, so is energy generally, so is technology and yes these likewise are political. Changing approaches must consider both economics and politics. A market free-for-all without rules and guardrails would collapse.This should be an expectation. What's required is a less polarizing narrative that considers advantage for all. Now that's the hard part as economics has always been competitive.
"...What's required is a less polarizing narrative that considers advantage for all."
I would differ a bit from how you categorize it - "Narrative" is just another euphemism (at least nowadays) for Public Relations - the process and messaging to persuade others of your message and intent to have others do something they otherwise wouldn't. You know, "advertising" which gets a bum rap when Big Corporations do it. Sorry, it's just another part of politics (although I agree with your words on the "intertwining" parts).
Again, I'm seeing this a lot from the Progressives who lost - "we need a better Narrative" instead of realizing "what we're selling, no one wants". In large part, what they tried to sell ran counter to those OTHER peoples' ideas of what the "political marketplace" should be.
Here, in this post, this problem also appears.
I disagree with you, in large part, that "A market free-for-all without rules and guardrails would collapse.This should be an expectation." Some regulations are needed but "when is enough, enough?". A marketplace that is strangled by regulation also collapses. While manufacturers/consumers have their ideas of their wants and needs, there are too many in govt that keep generating more and more regulations; often in the simple reason of trying to self-justify their paychecks.
Or, in many cases, being that they are unchecked by the checks and balances of profit/loss determining the need for their services, continue to pile on yet more more regulation in a "well, that's what we do" without having to suffer the consequence of their decisions (but certainly other have to).
Again, when is enough too much?
"...let’s worry about political change, that’s what matters most right now."
And yet, "I will not comment directly on the American election;" - and then put up the Gallup chart.
And yet, you keep insisting that you don't want to have this blogsite be political. I am starting (snicker) to detect a bit of cognitive dissonance; which are you, Lloyd? Environmentalist or political neophyte-in-training? Seeing the world as you wish, or seeing it, finally, as it is?
I also detect that you're not all that favoriting the fact that others hold to values not your own and you aren't liking them one little bit.
"They are also going to fight know-nothingism."
I will bring up the American election as with that line, the parallel is evident. Many Democrats, especially the Elites (both in politics and the talking head types) are blaming EVERYONE ELSE for their failure for not voting the way they dictated (and expected). Words like xenophobics, transphobics, misogynists, racists, white supremacists, et al, are being hurled in wide (and wild) abandon.
They have no clue except for a few that have calmly said "you're out of touch with your voters". Of course, they are being roundly excoriated for saying, what I believe, to be the truth. Yet, that IS the truth of the matter.
And you are now doing the same thing by calling everyone that doesn't agree with you "Know Nothings" to salve your feelings that you are not in the majority. Yet, Bob, VB, Coj1, and I have been warning you of this for quite some time. We've even offered you good advice, being your "Loyal Opposition", but it has gone unheeded.
Introspection, my man, introspection. Why AREN'T you reaching your target audience to persuade minds and hearts? Maybe because all what they are hearing are the same words that Hillary once said "We’re going to take things away from you” – Hillary Clinton, June 2004.
They don't want to hear "Have less, do less, be less" to make their betters feel even better about the yokes they are trying to place upon them, the plebes.
I have had more letters and nice comments about this post than any others I have written for a while. Now I wake up on my birthday to all of this. I think my present to myself today is to say I do not have to put up with this anymore.
I am going to figure out how to block (never done it) and will refund you your subscription. I have had enough.
You don't need to bother to learn how to do it - and you can keep the money.
I will honor your request to leave and not return.
I didn't know it was your birthday - HAPPY BIRTHDAY!
Lloyd, I have tried hard to write nicely but firmly. You posited a fact, I have merely replied to it. In fact, I've replied FAR more politely than the Wild Wild West days of Treehugger in a far more studied fashion.
But when you write "politically", did you not think that others would respond in a similar manner?
thanks for the birthday greetings.
>>"...let’s worry about political change, that’s what matters most right now."
One has to ask himself what's meant by "political change" and how that would look. Does it mean electing representatives who share like ideologies, or does it mean electing leaders who will—through diktat and fiat—exert far more control over our daily lives by restricting freedoms of choice, whether economic or personal?
If a coalition of U.S. political leaders demanded that beef should be taxed into oblivion, or that citizens will be limited to two flights per lifetime (as hinted previously at being "necessary" to achieve net zero goals) those politicians will be expelled at the quickest opportunity, either through a referendum recall vote or at the ballot box during the next election cycle. Humans will never vote against their own self interest, especially when taxation is so vastly different between nations. I've said in the past that my not eating the zucchini I had purchased before it went to waste is not going to matter to someone from Bangladesh who is going to bed hungry tonight. Do we need to do something about inefficiencies? Sure, but as with anything there are always going to be limits. And politics simply can't meet those without becoming a draconian tyranny in the process.
Critical thinking skills seem to be lacking all over. Couple that with a desire to ignore unpleasant facts and we get "CO2 is essential for plant life, so we should put more CO2 into the atmosphere."
Having a degree in biology, what part of "CO2 is essential for plant life" is untrue?
Agree about critical thinking skills lacking all over the world, but disagree on the relevance and applicability of "unpleasant facts" that remain unnamed.
The fact that these efforts emerge in different countries reflects the role of the internet and efforts by different governments to confuse western electorates and undermine perceived enemies. But I continue to muse on the “rats of NIMH” aspects and wonder how much human behavior now reflects underlying stresses and social pressures arising from the collapsing environment.