Society/Culture The seemingly growing anti 'western' sentiment in 'western' societies.

[barreness]

Redistribution of what? “People need not suffer” … where are you getting these undergraduate ideologies from? (Just answered my own question )

Resources fundamentally, can do that through a fiat system or directly

Where do you get your ideologies from? So little imagination or historical perspective

No, I can’t. What are you imagining, a socialist Utopia I suppose

There is no utopia, only collapse of unsustainable systems

 

[ferball]

Well we’re stuffed then, aren’t we. Lower energy = lower standard of living.

Nobody’s going to do anything for nothing. The profit motive will always be the strongest. Consequences (unforeseen or otherwise) take last place in priorities. Always follow the money.

Higher energy probably means cooking the planet.

Even if AGW wasn't a thing eventually economic growth would cause runaway global warming because the waste heat from all that economic activity would not escape the planet faster than it was created. Various physicicsts have done the maths and reckon its between 300 and 1000 years of 3% economic growth globally.

Its based on the assumption that economic growth is proportional to the energy expended in that economy.

 

[Episode IV]

Why can't 'anti-Westernism' be discussed, without anti-Indigenous positions?

Maybe that's an explanation into the anti-Western thing??

Your premise of defining discussion around violence in pre-agrarian (and industrial) as being "anti-indigenous" is incorrect.
Any discussion on whether or not violence was present among indigenous peoples is not "anti-" anything. It is a discussion of reality as it was, or as near to "as it was" as we are able to determine.

I haven't seen much posted yet to indicate that anyone thinks indigenous peoples, in this context, were naturally more violent than anyone else. The discussion so far has revolved around whether or not they were as violent, or less so.
Those who believe that indigenous peoples were less violent than other humans is symptomatic of anti-western thought. The notion that they were just as violent as anyone else is not symptomatic of anti-indigenous thought.

There is also a need to differentiate between the instances of violence (and their respective severity), and the propensity for violence, among among differing cultures and ethnicities.
Which, of course, leads to a further discussion of capability, which is also at the core of many reasons for anti-western sentiment.

As I said earlier, one of the things leading to this belief is the pervasive written history some peoples have, in stark contrast to the lack of same among many other cultures. Our s**t, to reiterate, is laid bare... but others s**t is not, and relies wholly upon oral histories and incomplete archeological evidence. That leads to the aforementioned cultural imagining, most notably among those who are members of those cultures, or sympathetic toward them.

mcnulty is in my opinion quite right when he says the propensity for violence is a human trait.
That's reductionist, though, and the question of circumstances and increasing proliferation of anti-western thought cannot be answered within that context alone.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Redistribution of what? “People need not suffer” … where are you getting these undergraduate ideologies from? (Just answered my own question )

No, I can’t. What are you imagining, a socialist Utopia I suppose

Resources fundamentally, can do that through a fiat system or directly

Where do you get your ideologies from? So little imagination or historical perspective

There is no utopia, only collapse of unsustainable systems

Interesting, what is both of your ideas of sustainable systems?

 

[barreness]

Interesting, what is both of your ideas of sustainable systems?

You want the full manifesto?

Don't have one written out, maybe I should

 

[Carringbush2010]

You want the full manifesto?

Don't have one written out, maybe I should

Maybe not a 1000 page essay, but something you think would be viable.

 

[Seeds]

Higher energy probably means cooking the planet.

Even if AGW wasn't a thing eventually economic growth would cause runaway global warming because the waste heat from all that economic activity would not escape the planet faster than it was created. Various physicicsts have done the maths and reckon its between 300 and 1000 years of 3% economic growth globally.

Its based on the assumption that economic growth is proportional to the energy expended in that economy.

using energy doesnt cause emissions. combustion of fossil fuels cause emissions. They dont have to be the same thing. And are not likely to be at all related in the very near future.

 

[ferball]

using energy doesnt cause emissions. combustion of fossil fuels cause emissions. They dont have to be the same thing. And are not likely to be at all related in the very near future.

What's that got to do with it?

 

[barreness]

Maybe not a 1000 page essay, but something you think would be viable.

Do you still want the manifesto or am I on ignore?

It will take a few paragraphs to summarise, time is money and all that

 

[barreness]

using energy doesnt cause emissions. combustion of fossil fuels cause emissions. They dont have to be the same thing. And are not likely to be at all related in the very near future.

As I said earlier, energy blind. There is no understanding of neoclassical economics and the laws of thermodynamics together, It's why emissions haven't dropped though we have the tech/info.

They have possible plateaued, but that is barely the beginning. I think we agree on a lot of s**t seeds you just haven't figured out neoclassical economics is wrong

 

[ferball]

As I said earlier, energy blind. There is no understanding of neoclassical economics and the laws of thermodynamics together, It's why emissions haven't dropped though we have the tech/info.

They have possible plateaued, but that is barely the beginning. I think we agree on a lot of s**t seeds you just haven't figured out neoclassical economics is wrong

Seeds completely missed the point of what I was saying.

Even without GHG emissions economic growth will cause planetary warming, simply because economic growth is proportional to the energy used in that economy and all energy use results in waste heat. Add that to the lag between the planet dumping heat as it warms (from whatever source manmade or "natural") and you have a situation where eventually the surface of the planet will rapidly heat from about 10 deg C warmer than today to the boiling point of water.

Its a theoretical point tho (imo anyway) because I think other factors will prevent that situation from occurring. We'll either move large amounts of economic activity off planet or various catastrophe related collapses will slow growth.

 

[nut]

Which western capitalist nations are out performing government controlled capitalist countries?

 

[CM86]

Your premise of defining discussion around violence in pre-agrarian (and industrial) as being "anti-indigenous" is incorrect.
Any discussion on whether or not violence was present among indigenous peoples is not "anti-" anything. It is a discussion of reality as it was, or as near to "as it was" as we are able to determine.

I haven't seen much posted yet to indicate that anyone thinks indigenous peoples, in this context, were naturally more violent than anyone else. The discussion so far has revolved around whether or not they were as violent, or less so.
Those who believe that indigenous peoples were less violent than other humans is symptomatic of anti-western thought. The notion that they were just as violent as anyone else is not symptomatic of anti-indigenous thought.

There is also a need to differentiate between the instances of violence (and their respective severity), and the propensity for violence, among among differing cultures and ethnicities.
Which, of course, leads to a further discussion of capability, which is also at the core of many reasons for anti-western sentiment.

As I said earlier, one of the things leading to this belief is the pervasive written history some peoples have, in stark contrast to the lack of same among many other cultures. Our s**t, to reiterate, is laid bare... but others s**t is not, and relies wholly upon oral histories and incomplete archeological evidence. That leads to the aforementioned cultural imagining, most notably among those who are members of those cultures, or sympathetic toward them.

mcnulty is in my opinion quite right when he says the propensity for violence is a human trait.
That's reductionist, though, and the question of circumstances and increasing proliferation of anti-western thought cannot be answered within that context alone.

I'm sorry but the entire premise of what you posted is related to a single issue that I wasn't specifically referring to.

I've read most of this thread, and there has been repeated references to Aboriginal people.
Some posts have been deleted/removed.

The discussion of more-or-less violence in terms of cultures throughout history is an entirely different discussion, which could not possibly be restricted to Western societies.

Because as you point out yourself, human traits cannot and will not explain the reasoning for the belief of 'anti-Western thought'.


I appreciate the reply though.

 

[CM86]

You want the full manifesto?

Don't have one written out, maybe I should

I'd really enjoy that if you ever get the time and inclination. I greatly enjoy your posts.

 

[Grin]

A lot is being done to enrich a class of elites, ruin the countryside, and the surrounding seas if they have their way and can find some suckers to invest in it (strange how the singing whales are silent on the subject), head us towards being a poorer nation (although we’ll have eliminated our 1% of the world’s emissions), endanger our food supply - and you know what? It all won’t make a blinking difference to the climate.

Follow the money - always.

Good advice.
Of course, if you follow the money in the climate debate, you'll find extremely wealthy individuals and multinational companies funding disinformation and anti science conspiracy theories.

Rather than being conned by disinformation, follow the science

 

[Seeds]

As I said earlier, energy blind. There is no understanding of neoclassical economics and the laws of thermodynamics together, It's why emissions haven't dropped though we have the tech/info.

They have possible plateaued, but that is barely the beginning. I think we agree on a lot of s**t seeds you just haven't figured out neoclassical economics is wrong

Except emissions have dropped. In a number of sectors and now in entire countries such as Europe and the USA last year. So given you now know that emissions can fall (and you shouldn't need real life examples to realise this possibility) do you want to change your answer?

And what has any of this got to do with neoclassical economics? And how do you even go about explaining neoclassical economics as wrong? It's an abstract concept that has been extremely useful to explain long run features of an economy. But no one claims it's a complete picture of an economy. ok there may have been some poor economists from the 70s that did but outside that no one says it is a complete picture. Doesn't mean that it isn't an extremely useful tool. Anyone who studies economic history realises the supply side dynamics is what drives growth and improved standard of living over the long run. Keynesian policies mostly just create insignificant blips in the long run with their only long run benefit occurring when they complement and support supply side dynamics.

 

[barreness]

Except emissions have dropped. In a number of sectors and now in entire countries such as Europe and the USA last year. So given you now know that emissions can fall (and you shouldn't need real life examples to realise this possibility) do you want to change your answer?

Yeh you can't import/export emissions and say they've dropped, climate works on a global level not a nation state one, try again

And what has any of this got to do with neoclassical economics? And how do you even go about explaining neoclassical economics as wrong? It's an abstract concept that has been extremely useful to explain long run features of an economy. But no one claims it's a complete picture of an economy. ok there may have been some poor economists from the 70s that did but outside that no one says it is a complete picture. Doesn't mean that it isn't an extremely useful tool. Anyone who studies economic history realises the supply side dynamics is what drives growth and improved standard of living over the long run. Keynesian policies mostly just create insignificant blips in the long run with their only long run benefit occurring when they complement and support supply side dynamics.

Look we can go into details but it's really infinite growth on a finite planet. Neoclassical economics only has energy as an input, where as it's fundamental in the nature of growth. GDP and energy is almost an r=1, when they are both interlinked you gotta call causation

Energy, In the modern sense at least, is all burning old dead s**t that didn't get eaten

yeheyeh, supply side jesus and all that jazz