Probability of our civilisation to survive without facing a catastrophic collapse estimated at less than 10% in most optimistic scenario

The Watercooler
122

I make no such claim. If you want to criticize my ideas, begin by responding to what I actually say.

My Mum is a (mostly) Liberal :tm: voter, with a bit of swing. Does she want to actively harm people? No. But I wasn’t talking about her. I was talking about neoliberals.

You know, these guys.

Hate is driving the world to destruction. Pretending it isn’t real is helping no-one. In the countries that we live in and are most closely involved with, hate is absolutely being weaponized by the neoliberals and their cronies to win votes. It is a sickness and it will kill us all if we don’t stop it.

It is not my claim. I posted links to serious, genuine studies of the relevant issues. The study by Bandy X Lee et al in particular is the definitive scholarly research on the point. Generic statistics that do not carefully examine the topic at hand are moot. That’s why we rely on experts, because statistics taken out of context are easily misconstrued.

Do I tho? Here’s a radical take on it.

The lesson Republicans instead want voters to learn from the 1960s is that cutting taxes stimulates economic growth, in turn boosting tax revenue. It is no more than an inconvenience that the Congressional Budget Office concluded in 1978 that most of the rise in tax revenue following the 1964 legislation resulted from economic growth that would have occurred without a tax cut. (Even at that, CBO estimated that the revenue gains offset only 25% to 75% of what the tax cut sacrificed.)

That is the obviously biassed progressive voice of … hang on, Martin Fridson, chief investment officer of Lehmann, Livian, Fridson Advisors LLC, writing in Forbes. Maybe my misunderstanding is not as bad as all that?

Finally, we agree on something! And as a patriotic Australian, may I add John Howard to that list.

One of the things that makes me proudest of my country is that in the late 80s, my home state of WA was a world leader in the whole idea that the formerly leftist “Labor” party could win the middle ground by embracing neoliberal economics and cozying up to big business. They called it WA Inc. Why does that make me proud? Because not just one, but two state Premiers ended up in jail. Sometimes the system works.

No True Scotsman, amirite?

I’m not talking about a theoretical world where the left and the right equally contribute their distinctive values. I mean, look at me: for all my anarchism and unabashed progressiveness, I am a monk in one of the world’s oldest cultural institutions. I’m not blind to the value of culture and history, and I speak about this often.

I’m talking about the world we live in today, the real behavior of those in power and those who are duped by them.

Recall how we got here. Your post that started this pointed out how fossil fuel production is expanding beyond projections. Ficus then proposed a fairly obvious link, that money means votes. I offered a counter-argument, that hate is often a bigger motivator than greed, and that this has consciously been leveraged by the neoliberals, i.e. those who get the profits from fossil fuels.

Talking about “real conservatives” does nothing to explain the problem at hand.

Our problem is not that people disagree. It’s that the rich are destroying the planet and we are letting them. We can’t stop them unless we can honestly accept the reality. I would love nothing more than to not have this problem; then I could talk about how we should all get along and not get caught up in divisive politics. Unfortunately, you can’t resolve disputes when everyone is dead.

4 Likes
123

Mike, I very much agree that voluntary cooperation is the key to prosperity, safety, creativity, and everything that makes a society good. I would just add that aggression (initiation of violence or theft) is not cooperation but coercion.

1 Like
124

“…Separately, a sprawling analysis published Wednesday by the medical research journal The Lancet focuses on public health data from 2019, and finds that heat waves, air pollution and extreme weather increasingly damage human health. It is the most comprehensive annual report yet on the nexus of climate and health, and is routinely cited by climate policymakers. The authors include dozens of physicians and public health experts from around the world.

Both reports make an explicit connection between death, disease and burning fossil fuels.

“Many carbon-intensive practices and policies lead to poor air quality, poor food quality, and poor housing quality, which disproportionately harm the health of disadvantaged populations,” the authors of The Lancet analysis write.”

3 Likes
125

Do you really think that in the worst case scenario regarding climate change humans will be extinct Bhante?

126

Yes, I’m aware of the No True Scotsman fallacy. Using “amirite” and linking to a definition of it as if I wouldn’t get the reference does make me feel belittled not heard. But that’s just a passing feeling, so I pass it on so you are aware of the consequences of your communication choices, and now I’ll move on to content.

I see your point, but I think you might be covering over a useful distinction in dismissing a division between those who use the word “conservative” and those who are conservatives of principle. Because conservatives of principle might actually be far more allies than we realize if we don’t alienate them by lumping everyone together with Trump. And they might be here right now, looking to discuss things.

It seems we have two problems. One is that there is a high likelihood that civilization will suffer a catastrophic collapse. Political activism seems the right response to this, though it is hard to say it will achieve its goals.

The second problem is that some Buddhists right here are saying they feel unwelcome in Buddhism because of their political beliefs. It seems letting go of our own political views for a moment, and trying to understand the ethical, intelligent root of very different beliefs, is the right response to this issue. Even if civilization enters a dark age I believe we are doing good by making fellow Buddhists feel welcome as the world goes down that path.

Balancing these two goods - making Buddhists feel welcome and activism towards change - is something we probably each need to figure out for ourselves. I realize I spend a lot more time posting in support of activism–as you point out, I started this last flurry of posts by expressing dismay at Canada’s upward trending fossil fuel production. But I’m not sure I’ve found the right balance. I can’t believe that making that post about increased Canadian oil production does anything to help in the real world. But, I think maybe, stepping back and asking myself if I’m making someone feel excluded here might at least make that one person feel better.

I’m going to try really hard not to make any more posts in this thread. I feel I’m really struggling to maintain right speech. As I go over this post questioning if each sentence is true, timely, and beneficial I believe they are. But I also recognize the possibility I’m deep in moha.

With much Metta to everyone who has contributed to this thread. :heart:

2 Likes
127

Bhante, You do indeed make such a claim. In fact, the article you attached describing neoliberalism describes it being an economic philosophy of the right. It states, “…the ideological and promotional work of the right has been absolutely brilliant. They have spent hundreds of millions of dollars, but the result has been worth every penny to them because they have made neo-liberalism seem as if it were the natural and normal condition of humankind.”

In fact, the term “neoliberal” is an ideological term invented by the left as a term of abuse for people that favor free markets. It is never used in any other sense. Nobody that advocates for free markets uses the term. The giveaway is that after claiming you are not criticizing “the right” or your mother, is that you immediately pivot to criticizing the right, saying that our ideas are “hate” and “a sickness.”

You include a quote from Martin Fridson in reference to the “Kennedy” tax cuts. Here is a graph showing nominal and adjust tax revenue from 1940-~2015. You can see that nominal revenues increased and adjusted revenues remained in the same range until the Great Recession, straight through the Reagan and Bush tax cuts. http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/images/u-s-federal-government-revenue-current-inflation-gdp.jpg

Throughout this period, the share paid by the rich continues to climb, straightforwardly in line with supply side theory. See: https://itep.sfo2.digitaloceanspaces.com/WPTIA-2019_chart-2.png

Your post about St Baker is telling. Across the United States, too, billionaires such as Buffett and T. Boone Pickens (the oil tycoon) are making huge investments in “green” energy. Why? Because the government massively subsidizes their efforts. The result is billions wasted, billions made (by people with the right government connections), and very little change the the environmental situation.

As a Buddhist and anarchist myself, I am always puzzled by people that call themselves anarchists but want to use state violence to seize the property of others (taking that which is not given) and force people to behave as they see fit using the power of government.

1 Like
128

I disagree. I think you did well by pointing out the hypocrisy of the Canadian approach. It keeps in line with the OP, and despite public, international expressions of sincerity, the Canadian government is merely tiptoeing towards the goal of addressing climate change. We are often viewed through rosy glasses around the world, but there are so many skeletons in our closet.

See what Europe’s largest oil producer plans to do…

Sure, it’s a long way off, but it is something other than digging deep into their oil pockets and pretending to be green darlings.

Please do contribute @JimInBC, you make good points with tact and respect. :pray:t3:

129

As with all political discussions, let us try to keep to the original goal of this post which posits the probability of our civilization collapsing due to catastrophic circumstances.

Above all, please be kind, respectful and courteous to each other :pray:t3:

4 Likes
130

Sure, I agree. Coercion by Kings, Despots, and Corporations, and so on is not real cooperation…

1 Like
131

Could you expand on what you mean by corporations being coercive, thus acting contrary to co-operation? In my mind corporations offer goods, services and jobs that people want.

132

To clarify I don’t think you mean that corporations are inherently coercive, I think?

133

I thought I said that I thought coercion was not an acceptable approach to cooperation.

Of course not all corporations act in bad faith, or are coercive, but do you think that individuals have much, if any, bargaining power when it comes to accepting those jobs or services?

134

I do indeed. No one is forcing me to buy their products or services. I’m not coerced into buying a pen, or a book or a laptop. And yes, when it comes to jobs people have a choice. Of course, some people have a wider range of choices when it comes to employment depending upon education or experience etc.

135

All of these things (including the actual existence of legal entities such as corporations) rely on effective governments (hopefully elected), laws, and people. The opportunities, or lack thereof, are, to a large extent, shaped by the particular rules that have been, and are, in play, and are often beyond the control of individuals. Which is why governments, quite rightly, change the rules from time to time to deal with exploitation, monopolies, and so on.

In my opinion, the systems (Governments, laws, etc) should be there to empower people and cooperation. Entities such as corporations are sometimes a useful vehicle for that, sometimes not.

136

Absolutely. Ever since humans invented and built massive numbers of nuclear weapons, we have had the capacity to make ourselves extinct in the press of a button. Extinction of all life on earth is the worst case of any future scenario. Climate change massively multiplies the probability of that happening, as it will ramp up tensions and give control over nukes into the hands of increasingly unstable and volatile actors—as we are seeing today.

If we don’t exterminate ourselves with nukes, or some other less predictable cause, then there is a non-zero possibility that climate change itself, together with other environmental catastrophes like pollution and soil degradation, will render the earth uninhabitable. I haven’t personally been persuaded by any science that depicts this as a likely scenario, but it would be foolish to ignore it: we simply don’t know enough to predict the long-term consequences. Most of the modelling, after all, only goes to the end of the century, where things are still getting worse.

More likely, I think the impacts on climate and society will be so severe as to destroy civilization and return us to a mostly village-level society, with tribal warlords as we see in many failed states today. Think Mad Max but without the cool stuff like petrol: Mad Max: Pedestrian Warrior.

This may seem like a massive shift, but don’t forget, until recently the village was the main form of social organization on the planet, supporting a population of maybe a few hundred million. It’s only recently due to the economic growth powered by fossil fuels that this has changed. I think what we are experiencing now is an extremely rare and volatile exception in the long, slow time of our people on this planet. A thrilling and exciting blip before we return to normal.

Maybe things will be better than this, maybe worse. But every scientific projection shows things getting much worse by the end of the century. There is no scenario that has the climate getting better.

Immediate and radical change should not depend on the probability of extinction, but the possibility, no matter how slim. The stakes are too high.

My apologies, I was trying to be witty, and obviously failing. (Knowing the right amount to explain things on the web is hard, so sometimes it’s useful to give external links, which might be helpful to some people to clarify what I meant.)

I share your struggle, and it is something I have no answer to other than try to do our best.

I’m not sure that I’m getting through, so let me just sum it up from my perspective.

I said something. You misrepresented what I said. When I pointed that out, you did not apologize or retract what you had said. Instead, you doubled down and repeated it.

In case you ever wonder why I am not interested in talking with you, well, here we are. I wish you well, I really do, and I hope you find peace in your journey. But it is not my journey. :pray:

2 Likes
137

I see. So it’s not climate change per se that you see as causing human extinction but the effects off it, war and such. Would that be a fair summary of your position Bhante?

139

Well I agree that the state is needed. I’m not an anarchist. As a mostly classical liberal I recognise that the state is required in order to ensure the rule of law, to uphold contracts, to protect against the violation of negative human rights and for military defence. I would also add to that some limited welfare, fire service and health services as well as state education (alongside private schools). I’m not really sure what you mean by the government empowering people and cooperation. It’s a bit vague. Could you expand?

140

The capitalist (or any other) economy is dependent on laws, government, and people. It doesn’t happen in a vacuum… Isn’t that obvious?

1 Like
141

Before the agricultural revolution there was an economy of sorts, for example through barter or gifts. I also think you can have a capitalist society without the state, I just don’t think anarcho-capitalism is desirable. Broadly then I agree with you that the state and its laws are required. I’m then struggling to see the difference between your position and mine? I also take it from your post that you are not an anarchist, since anarchism is the abolition of the state and governments?

142

Theorem: P(survival) = 0%
Proof: The first word in civilisation is “civil”. We are no longer civil to each other, so civil-isation has already died. Suffering remains. But we can all work on that together.

2 Likes