Race to most racist
I know you are, what am I?
No victor in sight
My parents taught me to have faith in neither God nor man, Alexandria. My inbred skepticism questions faith in science as well.
These paths are not irrelevant to me. I love to go to where physics intersects with poetry. I want nothing more than to be alive long enough to find out what the hell this dark matter and dark energy thing is. Infinity, both in a religious and scientific sense, is incomprehensible and yet I strive for an understanding of it.
But I question whether science can provide a cleaner, more efficient nuclear power plant that will absolve us of the evils of climate change. Solar and wind power come with their own problems. Problems of inefficiency and danger to animal welfare haunt green energy. Fossil fuels won’t last forever and their pollutants are the biggest chunk of the climate change disaster. If we want to continue using the good in technology, we might have to live (or die) with the inherent problems.
Man and machine can no longer live apart. Severing this relationship will cause destruction and suffering. It’s funny, what science has brought about will require an almost religious renunciation.
Both humans and machines consume massive amounts of foodstuffs, whether it be wheat or coal. Or, ironically, corn and corn.
To halt climate change, fuel-guzzling machinery such as airplanes and trucks must quickly come to a point of near elimination. We only need to determine how much and how fast the cuts should be. How many people and machines must be decommissioned? Twelve years is a short time to do this work.
A simpler, less mechanical time is ideal. In turn, the loss of life-prolonging machinery will naturally lower the human population. Less people, less machines, less climate change. There is no other way if the danger is extreme and the cost too high to ignore.
God may be dead, but will faith in a rebirth of matriarchal power save us?
I hope, Alexandria, you chose well when you separate the worthless from the worthwhile. Keep lists, inform on the good and evil among us. I pray to find myself sitting to your right hand.
Alexandria, it makes sense to stop bringing children into a world at the brink of a climate change disaster. Actually, half the problem facing this planet is overpopulation.
The other half of the problem lies in the technology/machine creation that pollutes the earth and dooms the life on its surface. Advancements in technology cut mortality rates for both the very young and the very old. Now the people/machine combination consumes too much. The elimination of machines may also be in our future. But today let’s talk about radical population control on all levels.
You have to admit that less people milling about would do much to get to a healthier planet and provide a more pleasant existence.
By cutting the human population, we can control many evils: traffic jams; piles of garbage; smog; light pollution; personal and international conflicts; strains on infrastructure; rusting junkyards; polluted waters; overconsumption of natural resources. Less people would naturally eliminate many environmental problems. Green energy alone cannot solve the problems of mass consumption. Extreme cuts in flesh and metal are necessary.
The big problem is in the selling of this idea. Your rich friends and enemies won’t want to sacrifice anything. The poorer people won’t believe they have anything to sacrifice. You have to stop overpromising a prosperous future for the constituents. Instead go out there and burst balloons. (Not literally, you know, latex waste.) Sacrifice must be sold.
People think they have the right to reproduce. You have to change this false idea. Immigrants are eager to enter the country and they can replace the falling population rate. Of course, immigrants entering the country must also adhere to strict rules on breeding. America must lead the world in the ultimate goal of massive depopulation.
Scientists estimate that in 50 years, the world population will peak at 9 billion and then begin to decline. By 2100, the world population is estimated to decline to 8.4 billion; still an increase of more than 2 billion people that exist today. Instead of Zero Population Growth, Negative Population Growth should be the norm. Strive for much less than 2.1 children per couple.
Egotism is a human problem. We think the earth is nothing without our life on it. Earth existed billions of years before us and will exist billions of years after us.
Humans created climate change because the machines they created provided many comforts. Humans want to reverse climate change because the dangers now override the comforts. Appeal to our egos. If we don’t cease multiplying our species, no future humans may survive. Keep up the false illusion that human life is worthwhile.
Alexandria, save the human race whether it wants to be saved or not.
Alexandria some of your ideas are so 19th century.
Your concern with deindustrialisation and industrialization contradict each other. Industrialization created the climate change fiasco but you are worried about four decades of deindustrialisation in the United States.
Millions of good, high-wage jobs resurrected in the United States seems to be the antithesis to your basic premises. Manufacturing should be cut and not propped up. Less industry, less factories must be the real goal. Labor unions are a waste of time and resources going forward into the future.
A society based on 19th century technological advances does not reduce greenhouse gases. Solar and wind power is not free from problems that exasperate climate change and quality of life. To meet your goals, you must conserve energy use and act like a tight-fisted hoarder.
Reaching so far back to Karl Marx is perplexing. He was a wealthy, male, German/Jew: kind of a self-contained package of evil. In the future, and to some extent today, everyone will be in control of their own means of production and labor. All we need is an internet connection to a screen in our own little rooms.
Our life blood today flows through the internet. The future will be only more of the same. Wealth can be created and maintained by wifi. The bulk of energy production must be used to supply the appetite of our computers.
Many people work from home. We need a future where everyone works and stays at home, thereby saving energy on transportation, infrastructure, and buildings.
All training and education must come from the internet. A great deal of it does so already. We can demolish all schools and repurpose the material for warehouses housing machines to keep the internet alive. Teachers can move on to do art projects or just enjoy life. Think of the savings in heating and cooling those large number of buildings.
So much of the products we need to live are delivered right to our doors today. We can do better in the future by virtually stopping people from ever having to travel out of their rooms. The internet is the key, it is the only connection we must safeguard. Amazon: the staff of life.
If someone runs short of cash and the government funds aren’t enough, they can turn to the internet. An outrageous act publicized on computer screens already provides individuals with fame and fortune. Alexandria you must be aware of this and use it to advance your noble goals.
Alexandria, I am also horrified at the income inequality gap between men and women. I know your Green New Deal is only a start, and is not fully fleshed out. I suggest you examine a twofold problem when dealing with this pay gap:
1. Young women are choosing to stay home with their children in alarming numbers and delaying careers or foregoing them.
2. Women are still the primary child caregivers and adequate daycare is not universal.
I know young women with degrees, some of those degrees are at a master’s level. Yet they willingly have chosen to let their education stagnate and stay at home with young kids. I see young women without much education also staying at home and not contributing to society with viable jobs and wages. I know of only one young couple that have bucked the trend and decided to keep the husband at home with their children while the wife works.
None of these options are optimal. Laws can be written to keep women in the workforce and make it against the law to aspire only to the degrading position of housewife. Husbands need not sacrifice their prime earning years by staying at home. To solve these problems, we can update and implement ideas from the ancient text “The Republic of Plato.”
Taking a cue from Plato, we can get rid of the unpalatable “Ozzie and Harriet” nuclear family model.
You can do this by:
1. Implementing public nurseries where no child knows their parents and no parent knows their child. Professional child caregivers take care of babies and children therefore solving all daycare issues. Dangerous ideas of religion, gun ownership, and individuality can be eradicated by proper education. It does take a village.
2, Segregate the sexes and share partners. This could solve the problems women encounter before they join the me-too movement. Sexual interaction should be controlled and completely voluntary. Of course today, the sexes must number far more than the two Plato wrote about in his work. All doable.
3. Plato’s Republic consisted of an educated upper class of Philosophers and Warriors that owned no private property. The working class was uneducated and kept their children and possessions since they were minimal and irrelevant to the system. We could elevate the working class and remove their private property and children as well. And once again, provide the proper education.
Alexandria you could become the leader of the Philosopher decision-makers Plato so admired. I cheer you on.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez I support your Green New Deal resolution.
A “net-zero greenhouse gas emissions” with an aggressive 10-year implementation policy to get rid of fossil fuels is great. Goodbye air travel!
I hate air travel. I hate travel. I hate the question, “Where did you go on vacation this year?” Spider like, in my corner nook, I read and spin a few stories. AOC you have provided me with an excuse to do what I love! I’m green and clean, leave me alone!
I’ve been living your Green New Deal my whole life. I should be getting paid for my low-fossil fuel consumption.
I have suggestions:
Confiscate all private planes, small and large. They don’t need to be all alone on those flights when it is more democratic to travel like steerage on a cramped-to-capacity plane. Less fuel to transport more people. Until, with any luck, air travel will end.
Call the gang; Beyonce, DiCaprio, Oprah and the rest. Tell them that the world will end if they keep up their rich people ways.
Severely cut President Trump’s Air Force One travel. Allow only really, really, really important travel with foreign leaders. But never Putin. You would like that.
The rest of Washington should be virtually grounded. Tell Nancy to slow down. Amtrak could expand. Greyhound still operates. Until that too ends.
Seriously, I would cut my driving way down if it wasn’t for self-preservation. Drivers are blind to pedestrians and bicyclists. Walking and bicycling in our car culture is a suicide mission. Much of my travel is within four miles from home. A safe, zero-car route would be great. Good grief, another cost to consider.
Ultimately, the problem of climate change, if it is to be solved, will nesessitate turning back time. Less people, less machines. The Europeans created those infernal machines, slow it all down. That is the answer. The good old days of the 1960’s and 1970’s, “Population Resources Environment” and “The Population Bomb.” Paul Ehrlich had it right. It’s the people stupid and their mass consumption.
Eventually the goal should be to travel no more than 20 miles from the place you were born. Your resolution is telling truth to the average smuck. Don’t let DiCaprio weasel out of this. I’m counting on you.
Marxism and a Renaissance poem. The scene described in this one poem included a feudal manor, with its outbuildings of barns and houses, livestock, crops in the field, peasants, and the lord of the manor and his family.
I read that poem in the 1980s during a Renaissance literature class. Sociological interpretations of literature were hot topics. Critics highlighted cultural, economic and political issues found either implicitly or explicitly. A twentieth-century view applied to a different time.
The professor asked us to read the poem with a Marxist point of view. The peasants performed the actual work on the farm and reaped little benefit. The lord sat back and drew in rent from the farmers along with ample supply of foodstuff for his sustenance and pleasure. Even the lord’s wife and daughters worked on a decorative embroidery project outside the manor house. The manor lord was the only one without the need to perform labor and just oversaw the wealth the real workers brought to him.
A Marxist lens can be used to critique any piece of literature in this way. A feminist lens? Of course also possible. The women peasants on the feudal manor received less recognition for their work on the farm and the home. The women were not only under the control of the lord of the manor, but also under the control of their fathers and husbands. Even the lord’s wife and daughters owned nothing of their own since they themselves were possessions of the manor lord.
So how about a capitalistic lens? The farm yields are thriving, the animals look well fed, the peasants look healthy, busy, happy enough, the buildings are sturdy and maintained. The lord of the manor must be a superior administrator to handle the business of running this small economy. Would any college student consider this point of view today?
Fast forward to my son, born in 1980s with straight, blond hair. As he grew older his hair grew darker and curlier. He also grew up to be tall and slender. Whenever he went to the local mall and entered the Abercrombie and Finch store, the staff tried to recruit him to work at the store. He never once asked for a job. Later on Abercrombie and Finch received brutal criticism for an advertising campaign that favored good-looking, young white people and excluded the diverse American population. So at the mall, a lens of white privilege.
A few years later when he was in college, his hair grew even darker and curlier. On a bet he and his friend vowed to stop cutting their hair and the first one to get a haircut would lose the bet. His friend’s hair grew past his shoulders. My son’s super curly hair grew up and out into an afro by the time he cut it and won the bet.
In the meantime, the police stopped him repeatedly while driving. Most times he ended up with a ticket for a small driving infraction. For years I have heard that the racist police consider “driving while black” a crime. Just recently I began to wonder if my son’s frequent run-ins with the cops may have been partly due to his driving around the suburbs looking like a young, black man from a rear view. Same kid, another lens.
Can diverse ideas exist side by side? In quantum theory choices are random. Something becomes “real” when people look at it. The location of a particle is fixed only when someone observes it. As soon as someone finds a new observation point, the particle may appear elsewhere. This holds true for the infinitely small particles. But science also finds large patterns reflect smaller ones.
Maybe we see what we want to see in literature and life. Truth and quantum theory seem to contradict each other. Point of view is literally ever-changing. A single-lens view limits a landscape with no limits. Can we take a huge leap and apply quantum theory to literary criticism?
With each remarkable scientific discovery we realize how little we actually know. The suns, planets, life; all the stuff we know about makes up only 4% of the universe. We know nothing about the other 96%.
I walked into a Philosophy club meeting at the same university I had studied that Renaissance poem. The club allowed alumni as well as current students to attend meetings or so the website blurb advertised. I have never felt more unwelcome in my life. My generation didn’t trust people over the age of 30. That mistrust of the old must be doubly true today. Before I left my one and only club meeting, one young woman quietly and with some frustration said that truth must exist somewhere.
Truth is a scattershot experience. If your eyewear only sees a sociological point of view, what is the rest of the story? The where and the when of truth. In the incomprehensibly ancient sky, we really don’t know stars at all. The universe is spinning too wildly out of control to anchor it to a new center. Although science is paramount in truth-finding missions today, it does not prevent us from longing for other epistemological methods to search out truth.
a creative writing notebook by Bill Bisgood
...promoting global understanding
Journalist, author, musician
A journal of diagonal parking in a parallel universe.
birding and bird photography
A daily selection of the best content published on WordPress, collected for you by humans who love to read.
Words, words, words
Santi Tafarella's blog on books, culture, and politics
The Art and Craft of Blogging
Just another WordPress.com weblog
Cutting edge science you can dice with
Understanding and communicating the limitations of climate science. Mostly.
Strange thoughts, random mutterings
Alis volat propriis
Excerpts from a mom/wife/teacher/crazywomanby8am
A Library of Literary Interestingness
High and Low. Here and There. Now and Then.
where past meets future
Random thoughts on politics, science, society, and religion
The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change
Author. Blogger. Bigmouth.
Ideas that make a difference
Dealing with anxiety...and my dysfunctional family
You even read my tagline!
(Somewhat) Daily News from the World of Literary Nonfiction
"Everything we hear is opinion, not fact. Everything we see is perspective, not truth." --Marcus Aurelius
Conversations About Science with Theoretical Physicist Matt Strassler
A detour on the information superhighway.