[Ibon]

To add to the last post, the fastest way to further aggravate human overshoot would be the equitable sharing of the remaining resource base.

[dohboi]

I think it's a bit more complex than 'care/not care.'

A doctor may care for a patient, but still determine that his leg needs to be amputated.

[Ibon]

I think it's a bit more complex than 'care/not care.'

A doctor may care for a patient, but still determine that his leg needs to be amputated.

It's even more complex than that. It's triage, In group/ Out Group conflict, witholding aid to decrease long term exponential suffering. It requires a compassionate heart tempered with the sword of intelligence.

Compassion without intelligence = exponential misery

Intelligence without compassion = Inhumane cruelty.

What is required is enlightened leadership that is authoritarian enough to withstand the protest of the masses as they win their hearts at the same time.

Huge task

[dohboi]

But I'm sure you're up to it, Ibon!

[Ibon]

But I'm sure you're up to it, Ibon!

I'm up to documenting the flora and fauna here, pinning insects, tweaking the hydroponic veggie growing in our green house, mastering growing high elevation coffee, getting to know the guests that drift up here, figuring out where to put the game cameras.

All of this speculation about humans moving through overshoot is my hobby!

[dohboi]

Everyone needs a hobby! It's mine, too. Or maybe avocation?

Perhaps soon to be my only vocation. Tracking the trajectory of the collapse of the basic earth systems that have supported life on the planet for millions of years would seem to be the minimal moral requirement for anyone who has taken a part in their destruction

By the way, would you ever consider posting here some of the pictures of wildlife you take. (Or perhaps you have been and I've missed them? I don't wander much outside of the the Env forum on this board.)

[dohboi]

And then you have the Repug's = neither intelligence nor compassion!

But really, I don't see the right as having a bigger brain trust than the 'left' (whatever there is of that in the US, at least). Of course, these things can be a bit hard to measure. But the number of people who hold views that are demonstrably irreconcilable with reality is quite a bit higher on the right than the left, from the studies I've seen (think denial of CC, evolution, and even whether the earth revolves around the sun!)

[AgentR11]

Don't ever underestimate the "brain trust" size? of the right. There's a reason we have the best engineering, best financial services, the best weaponry, and are able to do insanely difficulty things like a missile defense system that really could prevent NK or Iran from delivering a weapon by missile. Its just that our guys aren't drawn to the issues of the left; they are drawn to engineering and finance.

Now, that doesn't imply that our electorate isn't filled with idiots; but that's true of both as well, in fact, its true of humanity. 100 IQ is dumb as a box of rocks, and half the population is at 100 or below. That has consequences. If you want to sell policy to them, you have to rap it in emotion, conspiracy, and deception.

This is what I am referring to when I tell you guys that you can not know whether any particular representative in congress on the right accepts Climate Change as settled science. I guarantee you, that 90%+ do accept it; and they will STILL come out and say Climate Change is BS. Same deal with evolution, or other science topics. If the 100-and-below group wants to pee on CC as a left wing conspiracy; that's the story you sell.

The real issue, is that the right opposes the use of CC science to justify new taxes and new revenue. CC science does not demand new revenue into the government. You can completely address CC and have zero increase on the revenue side; but that would eviscerate the left's true issues, which isn't CC science either; the left's issue is to simply find a way to cut another check to people who are not productive. (fee & dividend).

[dohboi]

Nice way to skirt the issue with more rightwing paranoia about 'leftwing' (as if there is such a thing in the US) supposed conspiracy.

Are or are not the vast majority of the people who don't believe in climate science or in evolution more closely affiliated with the Rep than the Dem party?

Would you estimate such misjudgments to be signs of high intelligence?

[AgentR11]

Nice way to skirt the issue with more rightwing paranoia about 'leftwing' (as if there is such a thing in the US) supposed conspiracy.
Are or are not the vast majority of the people who don't believe in climate science or in evolution more closely affiliated with the Rep than the Dem party?
Would you estimate such misjudgments to be signs of high intelligence?

Not skirting it at all. No paranoia, just an analysis of what humans are as humans.

You know how the bell curve looks as well as I. Slice it like this and you'll see my point; slice it by SD, -3 to 1 no significant intelligence. 1 to 3 functionally useful, but nothing that speaks of "high intelligence"; 3.0+ you're in the money, as it were. Do you realize how very few people are of "high intelligence"; and I guarantee nearly all accept the science concerning Climate Change and evolution, regardless of party affiliation. Now, whether they'll ADMIT to accepting the science is a completely different question, so you could certainly get a pole produced that showed otherwise intelligent and well educated Conservatives "not believing in Climate Change". I know I'd lie in a heartbeat if I detected any hint that the pole was formed for a group with liberal policy preferences or tax policies.

So, my assertions are simply this.

The percentage of humans that could be considered "high intelligence" is extremely small, at most 1 in 400. I am right at the edge of that definition, and I do *NOT* feel particularly intelligent; the only thing it seems to get me is an awareness of how much stuff I don't know, and how much stuff completely exceeds my ability to comprehend in detail.

Of those "high intelligence" humans, you can be pretty sure almost all accept the science with regard to climate change or evolution. You can also rest assured that lying with regard to that is a perfectly rational survival strategy in social groups composed of conservative people. I know I sure as heck wouldn't allow myself to be associated with those issues in a group unless I was absolutely certain everyone in that group was on the same page, and comfortable with the discussion. Caught in a mixed education group, or a group of mixed social/political preferences, I'd deny it without hesitation. Its not a religion, I owe it no loyalty nor devotion. Its science. It exists as is with or without my verbal imprimatur. You don't get "points" for committing social suicide.

And also I must note, having "high intelligence" is not a moral good or moral bad. You should never make the mistake of assuming that someone of high intelligence will value things as you might wish them too. You are not a better or worse person because of "high intelligence"; it simply changes the magnitude of the good or evil that you might choose.

[Cid_Yama]

You can also rest assured that lying with regard to that is a perfectly rational survival strategy in social groups composed of conservative people. Caught in a mixed education group, or a group of mixed social/political preferences, I'd deny it without hesitation. Its not a religion, I owe it no loyalty nor devotion. Its science. It exists as is with or without my verbal imprimatur. You don't get "points" for committing social suicide.

Wow, life in the Fascist state. Thought police and all. Don't dare express your true beliefs.

Just how many others do you figure are like you. Not supporting der Fuhrer, but not daring to express that.

We've seen where that leads.

[dohboi]

+1

Further supported by:

I guarantee nearly all accept the science concerning Climate Change and evolution, regardless of party affiliation. Now, whether they'll ADMIT to accepting the science is a completely different question, so you could certainly get a pole produced that showed otherwise intelligent and well educated Conservatives "not believing in Climate Change". I know I'd lie in a heartbeat ...

And of course how convenient it is to know absolutely and precisely what is in the minds of millions of his fellow Americans even though he cannot produce one shred of evidence.

And why?

His own claim is that it is because all his right wing brethren (and sistren?) are, he says, every bit as paranoid and delusional as he his.

Talk about conceding a point by trying to refute it!!

Ummm, what were we saying about intelligence??

And perhaps realizing how sad and silly his argument was getting, he presented once again a final dodge, attempting to refute a claim no one had made:

"having 'high intelligence' is not a moral good or moral bad"

The fact that he has to put that in is a tacit admission that he has lost the main argument and is falling back on one he thinks he may be able to win. Of course, no poll can determine the morality of its participants, so this would be a wonderfully fact-free field for him to frolic in!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7lmAc3LKWM

[clif]

I guess I'm different, cause I don't seek brownie points for group think.

[AgentR11]

And of course how convenient it is to know absolutely and precisely what is in the minds of millions of his fellow Americans even though he cannot produce one shred of evidence.

"millions"? There aren't millions of "high intelligence" Americans; we should be approaching ONE million soon, but don't overstate the size of the pool.

Talk about conceding a point by trying to refute it!!
Ummm, what were we saying about intelligence??

I think we must be arguing about separate things. You seem to be very emotional about this "intelligence" thing. Its a quantifiable capability. It shows nothing about the quality of the person, their ethics, or their value to society.

Let me try again from a different point of view by trying to state what I think you are arguing.

You are arguing that disbelief in the settled science attracts people who are not members of the rare subgroup possessing "high intelligence", and that those sorts overlap the membership of the Republican party, and then go on to assert some knowledge about the disbelief in the science by the leadership of the Republican party by their statements concerning that topic.

My assertion is that the first is true, but irrelevant, as the vast majority of all party members, in both parties, are NOT of "high intelligence" by the stated definition I gave. You are showing a correlation that is true, but also would be true of the party in the opposite context, (eg, believing because they've been told..) So you aren't showing a characteristic that is unique to Republicans, but rather, a characteristic that is common to all humans.

I also assert that the second is false, and gave essentially a disproof by counter example, in that Republicans exist, who are of (near) high intelligence, who accept the science, but would freely speak in opposition to the science if such would further their own policy objectives. My primary point, is that you can not know whether a particular leader of Republicans accepts the science or not, based upon statements made in public. Secondarily, the intellect worship that the left regularly engages in, really creeps me out. Intellect does not make just or honorable actions more likely; it is merely a tool, a powerful tool, that can be as readily made to serve evil as it can good.

[clif]

I also assert that the second is false, and gave essentially a disproof by counter example, in that Republicans exist, who are of (near) high intelligence, who accept the science, but would freely speak in opposition to the science if such would further their own policy objectives.

I reassert;

I guess I'm different, cause I don't seek brownie points for group think.

But the more fascist minded among us seem to do so. It's that group think intellectual goose-steeping they all dishonestly do, as AgentR11 admitted he does when in group think land.

[onlooker]

Politicians can say, do and think different things all at once given their need to stay within the talking points of their party, garner votes and stay faithful to their corporate pay masters. What truly lurks inside the mind of a given politician is not ascertainable but I certainly venture to guess that most Republican politicians know about the soundness of climate science and the widespread consensus among scientists of the main issues of climate change. However any declarations about a need to sacrifice for the future of the planet, would be detrimental to a Republican politician. On the other hand both parties have demonstrated reluctance to undertake any remedial actions on climate change as this would not only probably upset voters but also their corporate paymasters. So the issue of intelligence is rather irrelevant to this discussion unless you speak about voters in which case willful ignorance or blind allegiance to the main stances of their party would probably as much as anything explain their views on climate change along with the fact that humans are geared to focus more on short term challenges rather than longer terms ones.

[Tanada]

Politicians can say, do and think different things all at once given their need to stay within the talking points of their party, garner votes and stay faithful to their corporate pay masters. What truly lurks inside the mind of a given politician is not ascertainable but I certainly venture to guess that most Republican politicians know about the soundness of climate science and the widespread consensus among scientists of the main issues of climate change. However any declarations about a need to sacrifice for the future of the planet, would be detrimental to a Republican politician. On the other hand both parties have demonstrated reluctance to undertake any remedial actions on climate change as this would not only probably upset voters but also their corporate paymasters. So the issue of intelligence is rather irrelevant to this discussion unless you speak about voters in which case willful ignorance or blind allegiance to the main stances of their party would probably as much as anything explain their views on climate change along with the fact that humans are geared to focus more on short term challenges rather than longer terms ones.

I am a documentary/lecture watcher by nature so I have watched a lot of lectures by Dr. Alley in the last year. One of the things he stressed that kind of surprised me was his opinion of Politicians. He has traveled with and spent time with politicians from both parties behind closed doors away from the press. Basically he says in public they are all program speakers sticking to a very simple talking points script so that the media can not take an off the cuff remark, twist it out of context and use it against them. This is true of both parties. He is a multiple PhD in very high circles and he is impressed with the intelligence and knowledge of high ranking politicians in both parties, and totally disappointed they won't do the right think because the wrong thing is politically popular with their voting base.

At least that is the impression I got from more than one of his lectures. You don't get to the upper circles of democracy power structures being a dummy. Bill Clinton was charismatic as all get out, but he is one smart SOB. The left disparages George W. Bush because they disagree with his policies, but he worked his way up the party structure to Governor of the second largest state and President of the USA. You can't do that if you are actually unintelligent. Now we have Donald Trump who is an Outsider only in the sense that he never got himself elected before. In every other way he has used his wealth and influence to play the game with politicians and he spent the last decade playing with reality television where he learned how to appeal to the lowest common denominator of the voting public. He is a highly intelligent highly motivated very skilled manipulator of both the general public and the political power structures of this country. If he doesn't get bored between now and then he has an excellent chance of being the next President sworn in January 20, 2017.

BUT, what will he do about climate or peak oil or any of the other big issues? Why he will continue to say and appear to do what the masses want him to do, so long as those allow him to achieve his real goals whatever those goals are. What do the masses want? The vast majority want the cheapest energy available and to be proud of their homeland. The whole Make America Great Again slogan appeals to almost everyone outside of the hard self loathing set who feel guilty or angry that America has been blessed with resources. Heck I am a big believer in helping everyone around the world but after seven years of a President who disparages my country in just about every single speech Trumps catch phrase gets me interested on a very basal level. President Reagan had the same kind of populist appeal because he came in after the loss of the Vietnam War, the Iran Hostage Crisis, the Nixon debacle and two massive oil shocks and he sounded proud of America.

For some reason I have never understood a lot of very well educated people believe sneering at their own country proves they are smart, or helps them fit into the right social circles. Maybe it does, but it also alienates about 80 percent of the population who does not believe the same way they do. I know darn well my country has made a lot of errors and done a lot of bad things, but I also know every other country has been just as bad or worse despite whatever posturing they may do. We are a basically tribal species and the only way to get a country the size of even one of our average states to work cohesively as a unit is if the residents believe in the same thing. Patriotism is not a disease, it is the social glue that allows a diverse population to unify around a set of goals. Patriotism is the social contract that can unite every race creed and color to achieve a transition away from fossil fuels, or commit our culture to a civilization crashing course of action. Before VietNam both major parties in the USA understood that Patriotism is a necessary component for true unified political support from the masses.

[Ibon]

By the way, would you ever consider posting here some of the pictures of wildlife you take. (Or perhaps you have been and I've missed them? I don't wander much outside of the the Env forum on this board.)

Here are a few blog entries with images our game cameras captured on our trails. Our 400 acres border directly Central America's largest protected highland wilderness, La Amistad National Park which is 1.5 million acres, 80% in Costa Rica and 20% in Panama.

We are protecting a bufferzone of this park with our reserve, these buffer zone corridors are essential for the movement of large predators and altititudinal migrants like the Resplendent Quetzal, an endangered bird in Central America that breeds on our reserve.


http://blog.mounttotumas.com/?p=2323

http://blog.mounttotumas.com/?p=2216

http://blog.mounttotumas.com/?p=1510

http://blog.mounttotumas.com/?p=2164

http://blog.mounttotumas.com/?p=2025

http://blog.mounttotumas.com/?p=1731

[Ibon]

Donald Trump is a highly intelligent highly motivated very skilled manipulator of both the general public and the political power structures of this country. If he doesn't get bored between now and then he has an excellent chance of being the next President sworn in January 20, 2017.

BUT, what will he do about climate or peak oil or any of the other big issues? Why he will continue to say and appear to do what the masses want him to do, so long as those allow him to achieve his real goals whatever those goals are.

One of his goals is to be adored by the world. That may not serve the big issues like peak oil and climate change.

On the other hand another of his goals is the ego thrill he gets in shoving uncomfortable truths in your face and watching you squirm. This could be useful on the big issues if he channels this thrill to open up the publics eyes as to the truth of these systemic threats.

That is not impossible because I would say he does have a very strong patriotic orientation and being intelligent as he is and not really beholden to anything except his massive ego he just might use this to enlighten the public. After all, in his bed at night as he dreams his messianic dreams he just might imagine how he will one day be adored and go down in history as saving mankind from human overshoot ! !

We always imagine some mitigation coming from some rational place where society in a reasoned fashion adapts. Maybe part of the way we adapt is through this kind of twisted populism.

For some reason I have never understood a lot of very well educated people believe sneering at their own country proves they are smart, or helps them fit into the right social circles. Maybe it does, but it also alienates about 80 percent of the population who does not believe the same way they do. I know darn well my country has made a lot of errors and done a lot of bad things, but I also know every other country has been just as bad or worse despite whatever posturing they may do.

I agree more to this moving forward and I agree less with this as it pertains to the past. When the US was at its arrogant peak as global imperialist this hubris required a strong civil protest movement that called out the hubris. So all that sneering and criticism we saw these past couple of decades seems to me to have served a purpose. Now moving forward however I tend to agree that as a nation we need to pull together. It's what folks do to heal after a hurricane. The USA is moving more and more toward a break down of aging infrastructure, more poverty, a more wounded state. We need to pull together and work together to solve big critical issues.

Remember, the pendulum always swings, we are at Peak Polarity right now. This will change and I do predict that as the Millennial generation ages into political power they will create a strong national consensus. They are a more consensus seeking generation.