Dystopia may be a genre in fiction, but the stories they tell are always based on reality & would perhaps be better classified as predictive historical fiction?
WE, as citizens, have a right to ask our leaders, loudly and persistently, "Where is the Plan For a Sustainable Future"?
The military has a 30 yr plan to upgrade the nuclear arsenal for $2T, just in case we want to end life as we know it quickly.
So "Where is the Plan For a Sustainable Future"? It means we have to stop doing most of what we are currently doing, a complete restructuring of society, bottom to top (as flat as possible).
And now we learn the world population will start declining as soon as 2025. So long capitalism. It has no capacity to deal with a contracting economy as we saw during the pandemic.
It falls to us, each and every, to take responsibility for ourselves, each other and the planet. Stop buying crap, stop watching mass media, feed your soul, be kind. Life is short- dont make it harder for other life forms.
Here's my ten (11) point plan:
1. Nationalize the fossil fuel industry and plan an orderly phase out. This must happen because the industry will not do it on their own. They could have transitioned into solar by now! Humble Oil scientist concluded in 1957 that burning fossil fuels would cause CO2 buildup in the atmosphere. Humble Oil is now part of ExMo!
2. Nationalize our energy infrastructure in order to maximize the implementation of renewable energy. Some things are just too important to leave to private industry.
3. Everyone has a job and a paycheck. With great disruptions in society and our economy, we have to make sure people are supported while transitioning. Pay people to seek additional training in whatever field they want with emphasis on jobs that are open. Pay single parents to be parents! The best investment a country can make is in helping its people be productive.
4. Confiscate all wealth above a certain level. This may sound radical now but it will be mainstream when the shit hits the fan. Extreme wealth is corrosive to good decision making. If that level were $100 million for instance, that would generate at least $10 trillion, and that would impact 36,000 people. What is survival worth? It’s their future on the line too! The fact that we have over 2000 billionaires is staggering in its implications. They aren’t any smarter than the rest of us and without us, would not be that rich. Worse, they use their wealth to undermine the rest of us. A poor person with a bad idea can be tolerated but a wealthy person with a bad idea can endanger all of us and we must protect ourselves.
5. Restructure key industries to manufacture solar panels, wind turbines, carbon capture equipment, large scale batteries, etc. to quickly transition toward CO2 reductions.
6. Remove all fossil fuel vehicles from the highway ASAP. Subsidize electric vehicles as needed.
7. Convert large scale military computer systems ( NSA) toward global climate modeling and prediction.
8. Re-structure military toward responding to natural disasters, providing food, housing, medical aid and resources as needed. Disasters will be increasing in number, duration, and intensity.
9. Re-structure political decision making to ensure a diversity of opinions, and means of making decisions based on best available science. Move toward artificial intelligence systems to propose/make objective decisions.
10. Move cities away from rising oceans levels. This should start now. No level of walls will work long term.
11. Close all large scale meat and dairy operations ASAP, a high source of greenhouse gases but also a waste of resources. Beef has a 4% return on investment.
While we're at it, limit corp profits to 2% or less. If they dont contribute to your survival long term, they need to go out of business or restructure to something that does. Looking at you Coke and Pepsi and other carbonated sugar drinks.
The problem I have with your stated approach, Max, is that it is the exact same type of thinking that the World economic forum and the leaders of China and Stalin and Hitler used. It is a control from the top down viewpoint. It is the idea that we must interfere with the choices of people, because people cannot be trusted, except a few people, who give them power over everyone else will make the right decisions, and then good things will happen because we were all lead forward by….who again? Your proposed solution is no different than the leaders of the world economic forum deciding that they are going to take control and make us participate in their solution.
I know you care about the environment, so consider this. For all the damage done by various countries around the world to their environmental ecosystems, it can be argued that the greatest devastation occurred in the countries that had the tightest top-down control. China is an environmental wasteland. Russia, same thing. North Korea, same thing. Thailand is doing much better than its neighbor Burma/Myanmar as China has virtually taken over the country, resulting in rapid resource devastation and the mass murder of small tribal groups hiding throughout the jungle.
Let’s put it this way, I see no evidence that the consolidation of power into the hands of a few human beings ever has a better outcome than the dispersion of power throughout the hands of many. All human beings will make mistakes, and my mistake can be nowhere near as devastating as the mistake of the president of the United States of America. Especially if he or she presses the red button. You have made sweeping suggestions, that you appreciate or value as a person, but you have stated them as being achieved through some sort of super powerful entity that essentially compels people to participate in Max’s solution.
Now, you may not mean it the way it sounds and I’m happy to hear any clarifications you want to offer. But I’m not interested in swapping Anthony Fauci who a bunch of blithering idiots have begun to worship as the incarnation of science, his own version of God, for Mr. Max and his particular flavor of solution airy Kool-Aid. I firmly believe the best solutions and the process of achieving those best solutions occur when all of the people are able to talk to one another, Information flows freely, and people make their own decisions about how they want to respond.
I know you happen to be a vegan and I understand your concerns about the food industry on a number of levels, the torture of animals is awful which is why we eat our own chickens and do not buy store-bought chickens, so I get it. At the same time, some of the greatest farmers that I know of today who are we invigorating the earth are doing so in the same way that mother nature did which is with a blend of all living creatures. They have pigs and cows and they have tomatoes and cucumbers, they have chickens and rabbits and they have potatoes and wheat. Mother nature does not Eliminate animals and create a plant only environment, not anywhere in the world nor does she ever eliminate the insects. So, I have a sense that people who try to tell everyone else how to do it, they inevitably simplify complex systems into codify above human ideas and rules and in so limiting what can be done, they end up causing as much devastation as they seem to repair.
Our Native American cousins, being tribal in their thinking, thought governing was power with people, not power over people. We can see that top down does not work, is not resilient, efficient, or wise. And we need wise if we are to survive.
I agree with all of your point. I have no problem with small scale agriculture that tends the land in a sustainable way. My point was that large scale meat and dairy are not sustainable, are an environmental nightmare, and cannot exist if we are to have a zero waste, zero emissions future.
I want a democratic socialist society that engages everyone in whatever capacity they wish to contribute. If we were starting from scratch, the first thing would be to do an assessment of what is available, food, water, shelter, medical, etc. and then a plan of what needs to happen next. Imagine what a society would have to be to take care of all of its people, without impact on the environment.
I agree, although Earth is regenerative and every species has an impact…we will always fart & forests will always burn…so, the “zero emissions” goal is an example of a simplified target used to drive people toward what becomes a politicized goal…I lean away from any statement of extremes (no matter how good in theory) as I see solutions largely coming from surprising and messy and uniquely diverse ideas had by billions of people every day. A one-size solution for the planet, there is not.
zero emissions is for our human occupation of this planet. We've had 10K years of relative stable climate which we have now kicked up. forest will of course burn but we should not expect to pollute our home just to keep ourselves warm IMO.
I see your point about one size fits all - absolutely! local is best - but the aspiration should still be there to not foul our own nest.
A far longer reply than I was up for, but yeah, this.
I'm not ready to give up on large farms/ranches, as they are still the best way to feed large populations of people, but the problems that people usually cite about them tend to happen largely because of the corporate takeover of the industry, moving it away from its roots of being more privatized. Privatized agriculture has always had a much more vested interest in better treatment of animals, and being better stewards of the land in general, compared to the larger corporate-run operations. Privatization, in my opinion, is the best answer to fighting against the whims of the corporations (think more antitrust regulations). However, I know this is the problem - getting that genie back into the bottle. I have no good answer on how to get there, and frankly, I'm largely pessimistic that we can get it back to what it once was.
As for the rest of his points - it's all nationalization of the energy industry (just ask Venezuela how well that turns out) and confiscation of wealth. Add in the adherence to the scientific fad of the day, and you have, in essence, techno-communism. Hard pass for me on any form of communism.
Point #8 is already in place. It's called the National Guard. It already exists.
It's very interesting how many people are very willing to replace one slightly authoritarian system for an even bigger one, so long as it suits their particular hot-button issue/topic. I agree that these corporate leaders have outsized power that they do not deserve. Fixing that, however, is the hard part. Everything comes with a tradeoff. Regulating their businesses more heavily could have chilling effects on smaller businesses and overall economic prosperity, but doing nothing risks further erosion of our individual autonomy/freedom as a society.
We cant feed large populations of people on meat/dairy for two main reasons. First is efficiency. Growing crops (water/resouces) to then feed to animals gives us a 5% return. We could just feed the people w/the grains/beans and have a healthier population. You want meat, then grow it yourself.
Second, the environmental impact of large scale agriculture is not sustainable. Ground water contamination, use of pesticides etc all make it a bad idea.
As far as governing goes, I'm in favor of democratic socialism as top down does not work long term. We need resilience and that means most of us would be working on various aspects of how to anticipate problems and solutions.
I want us to work toward a sustainable future. That means the environment we rely on must not impacted at all. Zero waste. Second, society has to be structured to make that happen. Zero growth. As it it, our population will start to decline in the next 5 years globally. China expected to be at 750M by 2065. This is a good thing IMO.
So how do we get to where we need to be? I'm open to suggestions.
Feb 18, 2022·edited Feb 18, 2022Liked by March Twisdale
Your goal of limiting the human impact on the environment is admirable, and I believe as a global society, everyone can and should take measures to mitigate that impact.
However, your proposals include some very radical and drastic (or more specifically, abrupt) changes to what is already in place. You claim that you are a social Democrat. This indicates that you're for a democratic solution to these problems with the measures that you have already indicated above. Therein lies the rub. Your measures would, in effect, have to be implemented with the consent of the governed, or democratically voted upon. You oppose a top-down solution, preferring a bottom-up system, which essentially render your measures unenforceable (at least, on a large scale). You would then have to impose these measures upon the population, which in its very nature is authoritarian. In fact, this almost ensures an authoritarian outcome. You would then become that which you claim to oppose. The closest you can get to this approach is the Federalist system already in place within the U.S., wherein each state decides for itself how best to serve their citizens within the limits of federal law.
I agree that our current political system could use a few tweaks, in that I would be in favor of abolishing the two-party system, and expanding that number by at least three (much like Germany's 6). I wouldn't be opposed to even more than that (like Italy's 10). This forces multiple parties to join in a coalition and compromise for a solution that implements input from all parties that choose to participate. This method would ensure that more points of view are represented, and is a very effective hedge against extreme political fringes, both left and right.
As to eliminating farms and ranches, I'm open to privatization and localization. I am not, nor will I ever be vegan or vegetarian, and forcing me and others like me into that lifestyle is oppressive. So, while I agree with growing your own source of meat (if you have the means), for those who do not have the means, you are effectively making that choice for them. I don't agree with that. But, I suppose that could be a separate debate best saved for another day.
My point is, everything in the world is a never-ending list of tradeoffs. Like my example with the political systems above, to gain policies that favor your viewpoint, you would have to trade for your support for policies that do not necessarily favor your viewpoint in return, in order to gain buy-in and consent. Just remember, there are always two sides to every coin, and in many instances, there are even more sides than that. One person's safety and security (or climate/environmental measures) are another's authoritarianism.
All this said, I've enjoyed this debate with you, Max.
Many of us have seen the sign “Make Orwell fiction again”.
Now I will add “Keep the Hunger Games fiction”
Oh! I like that! Yes….I may paint that on my truck for the Truck Rally (the Orwell one, I mean)….thx for sharing! 😎
WE, as citizens, have a right to ask our leaders, loudly and persistently, "Where is the Plan For a Sustainable Future"?
The military has a 30 yr plan to upgrade the nuclear arsenal for $2T, just in case we want to end life as we know it quickly.
So "Where is the Plan For a Sustainable Future"? It means we have to stop doing most of what we are currently doing, a complete restructuring of society, bottom to top (as flat as possible).
And now we learn the world population will start declining as soon as 2025. So long capitalism. It has no capacity to deal with a contracting economy as we saw during the pandemic.
It falls to us, each and every, to take responsibility for ourselves, each other and the planet. Stop buying crap, stop watching mass media, feed your soul, be kind. Life is short- dont make it harder for other life forms.
Here's my ten (11) point plan:
1. Nationalize the fossil fuel industry and plan an orderly phase out. This must happen because the industry will not do it on their own. They could have transitioned into solar by now! Humble Oil scientist concluded in 1957 that burning fossil fuels would cause CO2 buildup in the atmosphere. Humble Oil is now part of ExMo!
2. Nationalize our energy infrastructure in order to maximize the implementation of renewable energy. Some things are just too important to leave to private industry.
3. Everyone has a job and a paycheck. With great disruptions in society and our economy, we have to make sure people are supported while transitioning. Pay people to seek additional training in whatever field they want with emphasis on jobs that are open. Pay single parents to be parents! The best investment a country can make is in helping its people be productive.
4. Confiscate all wealth above a certain level. This may sound radical now but it will be mainstream when the shit hits the fan. Extreme wealth is corrosive to good decision making. If that level were $100 million for instance, that would generate at least $10 trillion, and that would impact 36,000 people. What is survival worth? It’s their future on the line too! The fact that we have over 2000 billionaires is staggering in its implications. They aren’t any smarter than the rest of us and without us, would not be that rich. Worse, they use their wealth to undermine the rest of us. A poor person with a bad idea can be tolerated but a wealthy person with a bad idea can endanger all of us and we must protect ourselves.
5. Restructure key industries to manufacture solar panels, wind turbines, carbon capture equipment, large scale batteries, etc. to quickly transition toward CO2 reductions.
6. Remove all fossil fuel vehicles from the highway ASAP. Subsidize electric vehicles as needed.
7. Convert large scale military computer systems ( NSA) toward global climate modeling and prediction.
8. Re-structure military toward responding to natural disasters, providing food, housing, medical aid and resources as needed. Disasters will be increasing in number, duration, and intensity.
9. Re-structure political decision making to ensure a diversity of opinions, and means of making decisions based on best available science. Move toward artificial intelligence systems to propose/make objective decisions.
10. Move cities away from rising oceans levels. This should start now. No level of walls will work long term.
11. Close all large scale meat and dairy operations ASAP, a high source of greenhouse gases but also a waste of resources. Beef has a 4% return on investment.
While we're at it, limit corp profits to 2% or less. If they dont contribute to your survival long term, they need to go out of business or restructure to something that does. Looking at you Coke and Pepsi and other carbonated sugar drinks.
Sooooo....... techno-communism then, huh? Back away from the cliff.....the pendulum need not swing so far back in the other direction.
The problem I have with your stated approach, Max, is that it is the exact same type of thinking that the World economic forum and the leaders of China and Stalin and Hitler used. It is a control from the top down viewpoint. It is the idea that we must interfere with the choices of people, because people cannot be trusted, except a few people, who give them power over everyone else will make the right decisions, and then good things will happen because we were all lead forward by….who again? Your proposed solution is no different than the leaders of the world economic forum deciding that they are going to take control and make us participate in their solution.
I know you care about the environment, so consider this. For all the damage done by various countries around the world to their environmental ecosystems, it can be argued that the greatest devastation occurred in the countries that had the tightest top-down control. China is an environmental wasteland. Russia, same thing. North Korea, same thing. Thailand is doing much better than its neighbor Burma/Myanmar as China has virtually taken over the country, resulting in rapid resource devastation and the mass murder of small tribal groups hiding throughout the jungle.
Let’s put it this way, I see no evidence that the consolidation of power into the hands of a few human beings ever has a better outcome than the dispersion of power throughout the hands of many. All human beings will make mistakes, and my mistake can be nowhere near as devastating as the mistake of the president of the United States of America. Especially if he or she presses the red button. You have made sweeping suggestions, that you appreciate or value as a person, but you have stated them as being achieved through some sort of super powerful entity that essentially compels people to participate in Max’s solution.
Now, you may not mean it the way it sounds and I’m happy to hear any clarifications you want to offer. But I’m not interested in swapping Anthony Fauci who a bunch of blithering idiots have begun to worship as the incarnation of science, his own version of God, for Mr. Max and his particular flavor of solution airy Kool-Aid. I firmly believe the best solutions and the process of achieving those best solutions occur when all of the people are able to talk to one another, Information flows freely, and people make their own decisions about how they want to respond.
I know you happen to be a vegan and I understand your concerns about the food industry on a number of levels, the torture of animals is awful which is why we eat our own chickens and do not buy store-bought chickens, so I get it. At the same time, some of the greatest farmers that I know of today who are we invigorating the earth are doing so in the same way that mother nature did which is with a blend of all living creatures. They have pigs and cows and they have tomatoes and cucumbers, they have chickens and rabbits and they have potatoes and wheat. Mother nature does not Eliminate animals and create a plant only environment, not anywhere in the world nor does she ever eliminate the insects. So, I have a sense that people who try to tell everyone else how to do it, they inevitably simplify complex systems into codify above human ideas and rules and in so limiting what can be done, they end up causing as much devastation as they seem to repair.
Our Native American cousins, being tribal in their thinking, thought governing was power with people, not power over people. We can see that top down does not work, is not resilient, efficient, or wise. And we need wise if we are to survive.
I agree with all of your point. I have no problem with small scale agriculture that tends the land in a sustainable way. My point was that large scale meat and dairy are not sustainable, are an environmental nightmare, and cannot exist if we are to have a zero waste, zero emissions future.
I want a democratic socialist society that engages everyone in whatever capacity they wish to contribute. If we were starting from scratch, the first thing would be to do an assessment of what is available, food, water, shelter, medical, etc. and then a plan of what needs to happen next. Imagine what a society would have to be to take care of all of its people, without impact on the environment.
I agree, although Earth is regenerative and every species has an impact…we will always fart & forests will always burn…so, the “zero emissions” goal is an example of a simplified target used to drive people toward what becomes a politicized goal…I lean away from any statement of extremes (no matter how good in theory) as I see solutions largely coming from surprising and messy and uniquely diverse ideas had by billions of people every day. A one-size solution for the planet, there is not.
zero emissions is for our human occupation of this planet. We've had 10K years of relative stable climate which we have now kicked up. forest will of course burn but we should not expect to pollute our home just to keep ourselves warm IMO.
I see your point about one size fits all - absolutely! local is best - but the aspiration should still be there to not foul our own nest.
A far longer reply than I was up for, but yeah, this.
I'm not ready to give up on large farms/ranches, as they are still the best way to feed large populations of people, but the problems that people usually cite about them tend to happen largely because of the corporate takeover of the industry, moving it away from its roots of being more privatized. Privatized agriculture has always had a much more vested interest in better treatment of animals, and being better stewards of the land in general, compared to the larger corporate-run operations. Privatization, in my opinion, is the best answer to fighting against the whims of the corporations (think more antitrust regulations). However, I know this is the problem - getting that genie back into the bottle. I have no good answer on how to get there, and frankly, I'm largely pessimistic that we can get it back to what it once was.
As for the rest of his points - it's all nationalization of the energy industry (just ask Venezuela how well that turns out) and confiscation of wealth. Add in the adherence to the scientific fad of the day, and you have, in essence, techno-communism. Hard pass for me on any form of communism.
Point #8 is already in place. It's called the National Guard. It already exists.
It's very interesting how many people are very willing to replace one slightly authoritarian system for an even bigger one, so long as it suits their particular hot-button issue/topic. I agree that these corporate leaders have outsized power that they do not deserve. Fixing that, however, is the hard part. Everything comes with a tradeoff. Regulating their businesses more heavily could have chilling effects on smaller businesses and overall economic prosperity, but doing nothing risks further erosion of our individual autonomy/freedom as a society.
A lot to chew on.
Yes. Absolutely. 😎
Thank you for the thoughtful reply.
We cant feed large populations of people on meat/dairy for two main reasons. First is efficiency. Growing crops (water/resouces) to then feed to animals gives us a 5% return. We could just feed the people w/the grains/beans and have a healthier population. You want meat, then grow it yourself.
Second, the environmental impact of large scale agriculture is not sustainable. Ground water contamination, use of pesticides etc all make it a bad idea.
As far as governing goes, I'm in favor of democratic socialism as top down does not work long term. We need resilience and that means most of us would be working on various aspects of how to anticipate problems and solutions.
I want us to work toward a sustainable future. That means the environment we rely on must not impacted at all. Zero waste. Second, society has to be structured to make that happen. Zero growth. As it it, our population will start to decline in the next 5 years globally. China expected to be at 750M by 2065. This is a good thing IMO.
So how do we get to where we need to be? I'm open to suggestions.
Your goal of limiting the human impact on the environment is admirable, and I believe as a global society, everyone can and should take measures to mitigate that impact.
However, your proposals include some very radical and drastic (or more specifically, abrupt) changes to what is already in place. You claim that you are a social Democrat. This indicates that you're for a democratic solution to these problems with the measures that you have already indicated above. Therein lies the rub. Your measures would, in effect, have to be implemented with the consent of the governed, or democratically voted upon. You oppose a top-down solution, preferring a bottom-up system, which essentially render your measures unenforceable (at least, on a large scale). You would then have to impose these measures upon the population, which in its very nature is authoritarian. In fact, this almost ensures an authoritarian outcome. You would then become that which you claim to oppose. The closest you can get to this approach is the Federalist system already in place within the U.S., wherein each state decides for itself how best to serve their citizens within the limits of federal law.
I agree that our current political system could use a few tweaks, in that I would be in favor of abolishing the two-party system, and expanding that number by at least three (much like Germany's 6). I wouldn't be opposed to even more than that (like Italy's 10). This forces multiple parties to join in a coalition and compromise for a solution that implements input from all parties that choose to participate. This method would ensure that more points of view are represented, and is a very effective hedge against extreme political fringes, both left and right.
As to eliminating farms and ranches, I'm open to privatization and localization. I am not, nor will I ever be vegan or vegetarian, and forcing me and others like me into that lifestyle is oppressive. So, while I agree with growing your own source of meat (if you have the means), for those who do not have the means, you are effectively making that choice for them. I don't agree with that. But, I suppose that could be a separate debate best saved for another day.
My point is, everything in the world is a never-ending list of tradeoffs. Like my example with the political systems above, to gain policies that favor your viewpoint, you would have to trade for your support for policies that do not necessarily favor your viewpoint in return, in order to gain buy-in and consent. Just remember, there are always two sides to every coin, and in many instances, there are even more sides than that. One person's safety and security (or climate/environmental measures) are another's authoritarianism.
All this said, I've enjoyed this debate with you, Max.