Jump to content

Bonam

Member
  • Posts

    11,473
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Everything posted by Bonam

  1. There is almost no benefit for prosperous regions to join larger nations. The number of countries in the world has been growing over the last several decades, not declining, as regions separate so they can have their own sovereign governments that better look after their own interests. As long as there are reasonable trade relations in place between nations, and migration/employment between nations is not too heavily impeded, people everywhere benefit from many smaller nations rather than fewer larger nations. Some provinces or regions of Canada could perhaps one day separate from Canada. But join the US? No. Not unless the future is a far meaner and darker time than today.
  2. They are implementing policies which involve projections of peaking 10-20 years from now, at levels much higher than today, before slowly starting to reduce emissions. That's not "curbing". If every country in the world follows the commitments that they made at the Paris agreement, the world would still blow right past the 2C targets all the way to 4C or more, primarily because these commitments allow China and India and SE Asia to massively increase emissions over the coming decades. The billions of people in China, India, and SE Asia will not be held back from attaining development and comforts comparable to Western nations, and the emissions they will generate to get there will far surpass what's been emitted so far. The most realistic way that warming that has been assessed as "catastrophic" can be avoided is through solar engineering approaches, like a sun shield. NASA studies suggest that a sun shield sufficient to partially counteract global warming could be built for just a few trillion dollars, a small price to pay if the consequences of global warming are as problematic as predicted. Once the impact of global warming becomes clear, and the political impetus to act becomes urgent, solar engineering will present by far the easiest options for meaningful action, especially since in a few decades time it may be quite realistic for an individual country, or even an individual corporation, to fund such projects, rather than attempting to reach global consensus on action which can be sabotaged by just one large economy that dissents.
  3. It's early days yet for social justice ideology, unfortunately. Many deaths have already come as an indirect result, as for example Western nations refuse to recognize that certain individuals in wartorn areas like Syria are at much greater risk of violence than the surrounding Muslim majority. Thousands of Yazidi are dead, largely because Western countries failed to recognize their special plight relative to other Muslims, which was a blind spot resulting primarily from social justice ideology. Similarly, most Western countries are shutting their doors to whites fleeing South African violence against them, again because of social justice ideology. And personally, I think the Arab-Israeli conflict has been drastically drawn out as a result of Western tampering that stems primarily from social justice ideology, although I'm sure many would argue that point. But you're right, the above results are nowhere near what was caused by Nazism and Communism. But remember that it took those ideologies getting into complete control of nations and implementing their agendas over a decade or more before the deaths by the millions began. Social justice ideology isn't there yet. There were those who could see through the evil of Nazism and Communism in advance, but they were ignored, as plenty of other people, among them many upstanding intellectuals of the day, thought that Nazism and Communism were great ideas, the cures to some or all of mankind's many problems. Today, social justice ideology is in the early stages, with some people (like myself) warning against its evils, but largely being ignored. History repeats itself. I really hope I'm wrong on this one and you're right, I really do.
  4. Well, by western (progressive/liberal) standards, even most Westerners are "extreme misogynists". Maybe that's the real reason people on the left don't seem to find any exception with Muslim misogyny. Not knowing enough about the world, they fail to realize the difference between the alleged misogyny they constantly complain about in Western countries and that of Muslims.
  5. US greenhouse gas emissions peaked in 2007 and have been declining since, and are projected to continue to decline gradually over the coming years, even with the relatively "anti-environment" policies of the current administration. Yes, with more effort they could be made to decline a bit faster. On the other hand, China, India, and SE Asia are increasing emissions at a rate that far outpaces any impact that could possibly be made in the developed world. Every 10 years, the CO2 output of Asia increases by an amount equal to the entire current emissions of the US. Whether the US cuts emissions by 5% or 8% over the next decade makes virtually no impact when China and India will be emitting an entire extra America's worth of emissions by then. This is where the "environmental justice" people totally ignore reality. They talk about "historical emissions", etc. But what's been done in the past cannot be changed, all that can be affected is the future. And there is no way to significantly impact total world CO2 output without focusing almost exclusively on China, India, and SE Asia, which together are responsible for over 90% of all the growth in emissions, while the Western world is already gradually reducing its output. You just can't argue with the math. The US and Europe could cut their output to 0 and we would still shoot right past the 2C target all the way to >4C, without even missing a beat.
  6. I think most people who argue against "importing Muslims" don't particularly care if its the religious or the cultural aspects of their views that make them likely to be "extreme misogynists". From this point of view, you're not really scoring any points with the argument of "It's not because he's Muslim, it's because he's from the middle-east"! If it would make you happier to call these people "individuals of Middle-Eastern or North-African cultural background" rather than "Muslims" I'm sure that can be arranged. Although, personally, I think it's much less discriminatory to criticize a religion, which is just a dumb belief and can be changed at any time (except in Muslim countries where that would be punishable by death, of course), rather than national origin or ethnicity, which are not changeable.
  7. You should elaborate on what you mean by an "inquisitorial" system.
  8. Social justice is the worst ideology to emerge in human civilization since Nazism and Communism. Treating people based on group identity rather than as individuals leads to the greatest injustices, and yet that is precisely what the ideology of social justice is all about. Social justice is literally the opposite of actual justice. As for the OP's topic of Russian information/psychological/societal warfare... yes, it's seemingly been pretty effective. But really it's been social media that has allowed it to be effective. More and more people have a poorer and poorer grasp of reality. Personally, I'm at the point where I just assume any and all information I might casually hear or see is complete bullshit. Only on topics of particular interest to me will I bother putting in the time and effort to sift out what reality is from among all the noise. The thing is, even if this disreality campaign is aimed at the US, it hurts other nations just as much, because ideas flow very quickly around the world and people everywhere have the same reduced sense of reality, not just in America. Dictatorships and semi-dictatorships may not care much about whether their people can tell what is real from what is not as long as their people remain obedient, but long term economic prosperity requires a rational and informed population.
  9. The same people that talk endlessly about environmental problems (while opposing all existing scalable technologies to address the problems - hydro and nuclear), are also the people that totally dismiss environmental concerns and argue for more population. The number one driver of environmental damage is population, and yet we apparently need a vast increase of it. These are also the same people that talk about a "labor shortage" at the same time as they advocate for the need for a "guaranteed income" for everyone since most people will be left unemployed by automation. There's no consistency or logic or rationality, just a bunch of disjointed emotional feel-good ideas: "Open borders! Cut CO2 emissions (but don't use hydro or nuclear, do it by going vegan)! Robots will do all the work for us so we need free money from the government for everyone! But we need more people! Use all the wealth that's been created to lift people out of poverty! But capitalism (which creates the wealth) is evil! Islam is peace and Western culture is rape culture! Listen to the scientific consensus on climate change! But scientists are in the pockets of big agriculture and they're all lying about GMOs being safe! No religion in the classroom! But the religion of social justice must be incorporated into everything, even math class! We're all about tolerance and inclusiveness! Except of anyone who happens to have a different opinion!"
  10. The labor shortage is a myth, just like the supposed demographic apocalypse. Everyone who's paid attention to anything over the last decade or two knows that the real economic debate is about what the heck will people do as automation takes over more and more jobs, not a "labor shortage".
  11. The extent to which people here want to cover up and dismiss the atrocities going on in South Africa really calls into question their motivations.
  12. I have a South African acquaintance as well and his family left for similar reasons. While none of them were killed, they were the victims of several violent attacks. The people pointing at official SA government statistics and saying "see, everything is fine" are clearly missing the point. Regimes that are trying to eradicate or push out a minority group rarely publicly document their crimes for the world to see.
  13. I'd take Russia over South Africa any day.
  14. Trust the market under an assumption of ideally crafted environmental policies? Sorry but I don't trust the government to have that much foresight. If politicians thought it would be to their political benefit over the next 2-4 years to let a billion people into Canada, I'm sure they would, future be damned.
  15. Wealthy GTA and GVRD landowners are a very tiny portion of the Canadian population.
  16. If one billion people come to Canada to find work, even if they are the highest quality people, intelligent, driven, law-abiding, etc, Canada's environment would be utterly destroyed. There is simply no need for so many people in Canada. Part of what makes Canada a great and unique place is its vast untouched wilderness areas where nature can take its course as it has for millions of years. Add a billion people and Canada would have 100 more major cities and their surrounding farmland and suburbs, and essentially no natural environments left. No thank you!
  17. Too bad so sad? The last thing Canada's major cities need is further increases in housing costs.
  18. Canadians aren't Libertarians and aren't especially receptive to a Libertarian message. Canadians want "peace, order, and good government".
  19. I don't think many Western conservatives "associate their positions" with that of Islamic theocracies. Nor, for that matter, do I think that even many of their opponents would accuse of them doing so. I believe it's mostly you that's trying to do the redefining. Most people who follow politics in Western countries today even in a very cursory way know what "liberal" and "conservative" means in the current context. Yes, the meaning of words changes over time. Languages are living things and so are societies. Trying to say that the currently accepted meaning of words should be discarded and we should only use words according to the meanings they had in the oldest known usage of those words is an exercise in pointlessness.
  20. Exactly. And what kind of person would put up with all that, just to get into public office? Someone who is power hungry as hell, that's who.
  21. I have better things to do than mingle with a bunch of political hacks. As do most other reasonable people.
  22. I would revise that to say that Democracy is only as good as the worst among the electorate.
  23. I don't think anything can really result in better politicians. Except maybe if we do selection by lottery instead of voting. Modern representative democracy is specifically set up to encourage only the most power hungry and unethical individuals to get into office.
  24. The campaign will provide child care and rides? Where and when? Doesn't sound like a universally available service. Moreover who would want to leave their children in the hands of fanatical political operators? It's not a matter of excuse, it's a matter of convenience. Here in WA state we switched to voting by mail and it works a heck of a lot better from what I've seen. Online is the obvious next step. The idea that voting should be some archaic procedure where you have to physically go somewhere to prove your dedication is not productive. Voting is a matter of recording citizen's preferences for government, and should be achieved just like any government service, in the most cost effective, timely, and accessible way possible. And that means online. Campaigning for a candidate is an exercise that's only for political fanatics. Most normal people want nothing to do with politics and just vote for the lesser of the evils presented to them by the system.
  25. This whole idea is absurd in the year 2018. People should be able to securely and conveniently vote from their computer or mobile phone. People always bring up issues of security/verification when this is mentioned but the reality is that those are mere simple technical issues to solve. Allowing online voting would significantly boost voter participation rates, I would guess up to 90% or more of eligible voters, and reduce the under-representation of all kinds of groups in voting (the young, the poor, etc).
×
×
  • Create New...