Mriana "After all, I am a Memaw, besides a Mama now too."Congratulations, brings a smile to my face. You know, pretty soon I'm gonna be a Napa - to go with my wife's Nana. I know to go with it, besides it does have a nice ring to it.
Although when a little one gives you a name of their own, that’s the coolest. ;- ) Enjoy.
The Guy: Maybe I misunderstood what you meant by natural forward progress of civilization. However, globalization is not helping the world at all, and it is more likely to cause worldwide conflict than nationalism.Nationalism is only the icing on the cake, just say'n. Gonna take us into deeper and worser shit than that.
Though you’re right, nationalism’s going to make the future so much more vicious and ugly than it needs to be. When times start getting tough and we should be figuring out how to better cooperate, maximizing profits and the ruthless few will still have the rest of us at each others throats. But you know the more I think about it and learn about the full trajectory of mankind’s story (and what a fantastical, but brutal story it is), you gotta wonder if humanity and society ever could have achieves a saner society that nurturing Earth and appreciated the special plateau Earth climate had achieve…
A world where people had internalized the reality of compounding numbers and Earth’s amazing biosphere with it’s regulating climate system and the story of how it got here. Where sustaining and recycle was built into all systems, such a tires being owned by manufacture who leases them out then is responsible for recycling. Easiest examples, but Earth is all about the recycling chain, reducing and repurposing and all that. No reason a thoughtful couldn’t be build around those principles - well except for avarice and it’s siblings.
For example, Reaganomics sealed my children and grand children’s future the our Faustian Deal. So it was peddle to the metal, consume fast as possible. There will be consequences to pay, just say’n. Every bubble bursts, and it sure sucks to be caught in that era . . .
good night,
Oh hell, lets bring this back on point. Latest news, a Mueller leak? It’s not good for the bully crook.
Mueller complained that Barr’s letter did not capture ‘context’ of Trump probeBy Devlin Barrett and Matt Zapotosky | April 30 at 8:21 PM
Days after Barr’s announcement, Mueller wrote the previously undisclosed private letter to the Justice Department, laying out his concerns in stark terms that shocked senior Justice Department officials, according to people familiar with the discussions.
[Justice Dept., House Democrats at impasse over Barr hearing]
“The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office’s work and conclusions,” Mueller wrote. “There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations.”
(Mueller’s) letter made a key request: that Barr release the 448-page report’s introductions and executive summaries, and it made initial suggested redactions for doing so, according to Justice Department officials. …
You think WEIRD and WASP are interchangeable?That is very odd. Maybe you are not as educated as you think you are.
Citizenschallenge-v.3 said,
Nationalism is only the icing on the cake, just say’n. Gonna take us into deeper and worser shit than that.
For example, Reaganomics sealed my children and grand children’s future the our Faustian Deal. So it was peddle to the metal, consume fast as possible. There will be consequences to pay, just say’n. Every bubble bursts, and it sure sucks to be caught in that era . . .
Maybe not. Germany seems to have turned it around, or at least started to turn it around… after the wall and Communism fell in Germany, of course. I’m just hoping that the U.S. doesn’t go that deep into the rabbit hole.
Oh and thank you. My grandson is 2 years old now and a really cute little guy. 
Congrats to you too. I guess getting older isn’t all bad, especially with rewards like that.
Lausten said,
I think attempting to argue by questioning people’s education level is odd. I didn’t say the terms were interchangeable. I look for the meaning in what people say, I don’t pick out a word here or there and attack them for not using it the way I would.
I agree. I could have been 70 (I’m not, but there have been people who were 90 on here) and said he was happy in the most archaic way, but as far as I know the definition of WASP hasn’t changed, unless one is referring to a wasp, which is a totally different creature. WASP is still used even educational settings, as well as despot, which is what we have in the Big House in Washington D.C., one of many currently.
Yeah, Mueller sent his letter to Barr on 3/27, saying that Barr’s 4 page report to the public was misleading and might hurt public confidence in the actual report and investigation. He asked for Barr to release the prepared summaries within the report that didn’t need redactions. Barr kept this letter secret. He let his misleading narrative stand, giving the pro-Trump factions plenty of time to crow their false narrative of “no collusion-no obstruction” unopposed by truth. After a month the Mueller report was released, tho still with significant redactions, but not enuf to hide the facts reported, that “collusion” was not even considered one way or another, that the Russians massively and systematically interfered in the 2016 election with the purpose of helping the Trump Campaign. And the Trump Campaign was open to such help. And that there was a host of evidence suggesting 10 or 11 episodes of Obstruction of Justice by Trump. But Barr continues to act as defense for the President rather than as Attorney General. He continues to enable the false narratives that Trump and his cronies unceasingly spread with zeal.
We have the historical evidence of the intense and massive destruction that nationalism can lead to. What is your evidence that globalization is more likely to be worse? Or is it just an unsubstantiated theory, like maybe “eugenics” is a theory?
What is your evidence that globalization is more likely to be worse?I know, I know: "The Exponential Function!" :-)
Arithmetic, Population, and Energy: Sustainability 101https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBtW51D_q2Q
Michael Ahlers - Published on Jun 15, 2015
A complete, unbroken copy of Albert A. Bartlett’s (1923-2013, Professor Emeritus in Nuclear Physics at University of Colorado at Boulder) well-known and well-regarded lecture applying easily-understood arithmetic to several key sustainability matters.
It begins with a simple statement: “The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function.”
He then gives a basic introduction to the arithmetic of growth, including an explanation of the concept of doubling time. He explains the impact of unending steady growth on the population of Boulder, of Colorado, and of the world. He then examines the consequences steady growth in a finite environment and observed this growth as applied to fossil fuel consumption, the lifetime of which is much shorter than the optimistic figures most often quoted.
Visit http://albartlett.org/presentations/b… to learn more about this brilliant lecture.
All we really need to do is bring the world pop growth rate down to 0% per year. This would optimally require some cooperation among nations in advancing all sorts of voluntary contraception to decrease birth rates. All nations becoming more nationalistic would tend, I think to defeat this goal.
Another possible necessity is reducing the too-high population of old people in the developed world.
Well even more likely is that with increasing nationalism, wars and conflicts will kill off more and more of the younger whipper snappers who mostly aren’t contributing much to the well-being of humanity anyway. That is not the preferred method of bringing the pop growth rate to zero, imo, but it could work. So you prefer this method, I guess since you are pro-nationalism and anti globalism.
Old ppl are going to die off anyway at some not so distant point. But as a righty, I would think you would want to be careful about killing off the old ppl, as they make up a substantial % of FOX News watching, MAGA spouting, Trump allies. The alt-right needs those oldies.
We have the historical evidence of the intense and massive destruction that nationalism can lead to. What is your evidence that globalization is more likely to be worse? Or is it just an unsubstantiated theory, like maybe “eugenics” is a theory?Globalization is destroying the middle class — which history shows having a stabilizing effect on society as well as being necessary for democracy. Unstable societies will inevitably careen towards war and totalitarianism which then affects their neighbors, leading to even more conflict.
Nationalism leads to war and totalitarianism sometimes, but it is often necessary for self-preservation.
Old ppl are going to die off anyway at some not so distant point. But as a righty, I would think you would want to be careful about killing off the old ppl, as they make up a substantial % of FOX News watching, MAGA spouting, Trump allies. The alt-right needs those oldies.Of course they will die eventually, the big difference is there is a tremendous surplus of old people sucking up resources in a way that’s never been seen before.
As for the boomer conservatives, they are degenerates who seem only to care about their credit scores and lower taxes. Like the rest of their generation, they are responsible for this mess and won’t be missed at all by the young, new right.
TimB said,
All we really need to do is bring the world pop growth rate down to 0% per year. This would optimally require some cooperation among nations in advancing all sorts of voluntary contraception to decrease birth rates. All nations becoming more nationalistic would tend, I think to defeat this goal.
Not all humans would agree to not having children. This isn’t exactly the best way to deal with any creature on earth. The Chinese made a one child law, taxation on any more children. Because most couples only had one child, they now have a shortage of workers and elderly caregivers. The older, more populated generations are dying off and their population is decreasing drastically from when this law was enacted. Thus, and I don’t agree with such a law, a one child law would do similar around the world. Why don’t I agree? Because I’m an only child and for so many reasons it’s not all it’s cracked up to be, thus why I had two children, which I think is better than one and three is more than enough. I don’t understand people who have more than 3, but there are many couples in the U.S. who do have man kids. Makes no sense to me.
I did say voluntary contraception. Also, it wouldn’t be necessary to limit every couple to 2 children. If every couple only had an average of 2 children, the population growth rate would go below 0%. But laws and agreements that encouraged most couples in all nations to have zero or one or 2 or 3, might suffice.
The problem is groups like the Quiverfull Movement (think Duggars), in which they believe God says women have to be baby factories, popping out a baby every year or two for the rest of their reproductive lives and while they say “Man cannot serve two masters” women have to serve “God and their husband”. They believe “God blesses them with children” instead of sperm and ovum meeting, follow by cell division for the next 40 weeks, until the fetus is ready to be born. So there are those stupid groups with stupid people, who would refuse to follow that law.
That is a VERY big problem, the cultures who promote many children would be the culture groups that grow as other cultures would diminish, at least relatively. They would also probably be poorer cultures, eventually, and even more likely to wind up as refugees or otherwise seeking to immigrate. But the cultures who successfully went below 0% pop growth would probably be wealthier and would need immigrants.
I was not thinking about punitive laws, but more like laws that reward couples while they have zero kids, reward a bit less when they have 1, even less when they have 2, and the least amount of reward, but something, if they have 3. If 4 kids - give them a stern talking to; 5 kids - say something bitingly sarcastic to them; 6 or more - just stare at them frowning and silently shaking your head.
I don’t know if frowning and shaking one’s head would help these group due to their belief that their god “blessed” them with all those children. They literally see children as a blessing from God and not something created through having sex, which IMO is utter stupidity, making a woman a baby factory, degrading the woman to a cow, etc etc. Of course, cows get better treatment, because they are not forced to bow and coo to a man.