[EnergyUnlimited]

They were part of the Enlightenment, they believed in liberty, the power of reason and the value of education.

And those who was actually educating themselves could easily afford it and were in position to make use of what they have learned, academic courses were giving you a meaningful state of the art konwledge rather than politically correct nonsense and student loans for idiots leaving them with debt for life were not available.
Society also understood that 1 person with higher education per ~300 is all what is needed and others should train in useful crafts and trades etc.

[Ibon]

Society also understood that 1 person with higher education per ~300 is all what is needed and others should train in useful crafts and trades etc.

In the 18th century the masses respected learned individuals. Farmers, tradesmen and craftsmen were organically embedded in their communities and deferred to those who were learned.

Today the masses are empowered with mediocrity spewing their shit all over the place on social media. This completely drowns out and removes from any authority those individuals who are learned. In fact, the intelligent individual retreats and avoids participating very willingly in the public sphere which is dominated by mediocrity. The concept of the Enlightenment and what that meant in the 18th century is not understood today by even 1% of the population.

Imagine for a moment the integrity of a learned individual from the 18th century exposed to today's internet, to our presidents tweets, to the news media, to the tone of discourse? There was back in the 18th century those traveling circuses and carnivals which was cheap entertainment, two headed sheep and the tallest man in the world and man eating lions and snake eyed salesman. A learned individual from the 18th century transported to the 21st century would believe that society turned into a 365 day travelling circus.

[Newfie]

They were part of the Enlightenment, they believed in liberty, the power of reason and the value of education.

Yes, but how died they get selected to convene a congress?

That’s the difference I think. I believe we still have a cadre if intelligent and mature individuals but they are not being pulled forward into public service. What did we do then that we do not do now?

[mousepad]

Today the masses are empowered with mediocrity spewing their shit all over the place on social media. This completely drowns out and removes from any authority those individuals who are learned.

The internet of today was the tavern of the past, where the loudest proclaimed his "truth". I don't think much changed. The masses were uneducated in the past, much more so than today.

In the end does it matter? It's democracy in action. The majority should get their wish. Even if those wishes are incomprehensible in the eye of "educated" citizens.
But democracy is not for the "educated" to command. It's for everybody. Where the dumb-wit gets a voice the same as a professor. And that's good. Once a select club of "elites" start to think they know better and start to direct to their best interest, that's when trouble start.

[Newfie]

Mouse,

Not so sure about that. Others argue that we were more intellectually engaged in the late 18th century than not. Notably but not alone Neil Postman in “Amusing Ourselves to Death.”

To your second point about “elites” running the country I personally think we have that now. They are financial elites not pragmatic intellectual elites, which is the problem. As far as our current state of democracy it is very, very low. We have some superficial trappings, but the bottom line is that the military industrial pharma complex runs the country within narrow parameters no mater the outcome of any election. If Trump, or Obama or anyone were to truly threaten they they would get the Epstein treatment in a hurry.

[mousepad]

Mouse,

Not so sure about that. Others argue that we were more intellectually engaged in the late 18th century than not. Notably but not alone Neil Postman in “Amusing Ourselves to Death.”

I subscribe to the idea of a civilization being a living thing. At young age, its citizens have a dream, and idea, and ideal. They have heroes they look up to, they had a struggle they or not distant ancestors overcame. They selflessly give all their power, their energy to the "cause", because the "cause" is what they believe in.

As the civilization ages, the younger generation becomes further and further removed from the past till it's nothing put a fairy tale in a history book. By then the individual comes first, the nation second. The beginning of the end.

Importing a huge quantity of foreigners that cannot identify with the values of the host and undermine its identity from within doesn't help either, of course.

They are financial elites not pragmatic intellectual elites, which is the problem.

Not so sure about that. We elect our leaders. We make a choice. We get what we vote for. We're re free to form a new party if moron1 and moron2 ain't good enough for us.

But then again, if the majority doesn't give shit about global warming, for example, that should be accepted. It's not for the minority to command how the majority should feel. If the majority chooses to go over a cliff, it's their choice. And you will have to go over the cliff with them. That's democracy. And I think it's good.

[Plantagenet]

if the majority doesn't give shit about global warming, for example, that should be accepted. It's not for the minority to command how the majority should feel. If the majority chooses to go over a cliff, it's their choice. And you will have to go over the cliff with them. That's democracy. And I think it's good.

IMHO you don't understand the important role dissent and minority opinions play in the American Republic.

You are describing the way a mob works....some idiot yells "this way" and starts running towards a cliff and everybody follows.

But thats not the way the USA is set up.

There is a long and glorious history in our country of enlightened minorities working steadily to change the minds of enough people to turn this country in the right direction. The clearest example is slavery....it took long long time for enough people to figure out that the Ds were wrong in defending slavery. We had an abolitionist movement that lasted for decades, resulting in the birth of the R party, and then years of electioneering until the Rs finally won the presidency. And even then it took a civil war to defeat the Ds. But eventually reason won out, the Ds were defeated, and the slaves were freed.

A more recent example is the Vietnam. Lyndon Johnson and the Ds took us into an unnecessary war through deceit, and Nixon and the Rs kept us there longer then was necessary. All in all it was a long path between the start of the protests over Vietnam and the final pullout of US troops. But eventually reason won out, and US troops were brought home.

IMHO Global warming is on the same kind of trajectory. Yes there are people who are deniers. Yes there are enough of them to elect Trump. But in the long run, I think reason will win out and the US (and the rest of the world) will be forced to do something about climate change. Of course, by that time it will be too late, but that is another story.



Cheers!

[mousepad]

to change the minds of enough people

That's correct. It's a minority to change the mind of the MAJORITY. But the MAJORITY decides the course.
It's not a MINORITY that forces their will against the will of the MAJORITY.

Your words are mine.

[mousepad]

Yes there are people who are deniers.

Deniers is not all there is. There's also people that fully accept climate change. But they don't think anything should be done against it.
Are they wrong? Maybe they have good reasons they don't want anything to be done. Do you think the reasons you have to take action are more "righteous" than theirs? Do you think you know what is right and wrong?

[mousepad]

There is a long and glorious history in our country of enlightened minorities working steadily to change the minds of enough people to turn this country in the right direction

I had to read this sentence many times over and I still don't really understand it. It sounds pretty, but is it true?

You would think if the enlightened minorities goal is to working hard and steadily to change the mind of the majority it would have been easier to simple give absolute power to the enlightened minority in the first place. Why would the founders choose to implement a democracy?

[Newfie]

Mouse wrote:

That's democracy. And I think it's good.

That’s democracy as we now have it. Good or bad is a personal call, Nature has so such morality.

As for me, I’m not very much in favor of democracy at the moment, it’s looking pretty lame. That said I have no better alternative, nor a much worse one.

[Outcast_Searcher]

So here is a challenge to Outcast Searcher and others who refuse to recognize possibility of hard crash on US territories in foreseable future:

You are *deniers*, very much like AGW deniers.
You are witnessing a hard crash of formerly most prosperous US state and you are blatantly denying it.

If you're going to claim what I'm doing, I'd appreciate if you'd refer to facts (like quotes I made, in context) instead of just your opinions.

I deny that short term economic "collapse" is occurring just because self-appointed self proclaimed "experts" like armageddon or shorty make cherry picked references to isolated economic stats or oil -- especially out of context or twisted and sourced from disreputable sources.

...

Now, WHEN have I denied that AGW is a reality? When have I stated that a slow crash won't occur or may not already be underway? I don't think I have.

No doubt, things in California are looking bleak and some very different policies appear to be called for. Not that this hasn't been true for decades -- but the consequences are clearly catching up. A slow general crash or a global crash is massively different than a localized event, IMO.

I HAVE said repeatedly that services need to be paid for. I suspect that a much more aggressive / proactive policy re electric lines, etc. are needed in CA, and likely in general. Those NEED to be paid for. Naturally, many people won't like the bill and will want something for nothing. That's not doom -- that's human nature, as it has been for quite a few decades, rather frequently.

[EnergyUnlimited]

to change the minds of enough people

That's correct. It's a minority to change the mind of the MAJORITY. But the MAJORITY decides the course.
It's not a MINORITY that forces their will against the will of the MAJORITY.

Your words are mine.

Disagree with that.
Thomas Jefferson have said: "One man with a courage is a majority".
In opposition to current leaders he understood that democracies are rather transient systems leading to ruin.

Current leaders are embracing ruin and are also manipulating mobs by sociotechnic to pursue ruinous path of development.

[EnergyUnlimited]

I deny that short term economic "collapse" is occurring just because self-appointed self proclaimed "experts" like armageddon or shorty make cherry picked references to isolated economic stats or oil -- especially out of context or twisted and sourced from disreputable sources.

You are also hostile even to possibility of it.

Now, WHEN have I denied that AGW is a reality? When have I stated that a slow crash won't occur or may not already be underway? I don't think I have.

I did not call you that you *are* AGW denier but I rather compared your refusal to admit that fast crash is already pending for example in California to actions of those who deny AGW despite of increasing evidence.

No doubt, things in California are looking bleak and some very different policies appear to be called for. Not that this hasn't been true for decades -- but the consequences are clearly catching up. A slow general crash or a global crash is massively different than a localized event, IMO.

Global crash will consist of many local crashes here and there.
California cannot be considered exactly "local". It has a lot of weight in US economy and troubles there can easily translate into much wider troubles.

I HAVE said repeatedly that services need to be paid for. I suspect that a much more aggressive / proactive policy re electric lines, etc. are needed in CA, and likely in general. Those NEED to be paid for. Naturally, many people won't like the bill and will want something for nothing. That's not doom -- that's human nature, as it has been for quite a few decades, rather frequently.

Electric lines failure and resulting fires are only one of countless ills present in California, which is already facing zombie hordes on streets of cities.
If it goes on like that for a decade or so (and this is very likely) then at the end someone like Duterte would be needed to attempt to restore order with absolutely no guarantee of success because organized crime may already be much stronger and police and military infiltrated by gangs to the point of being of no use.

As I have said - California already *is* facing fast crash and societal/cultural collapse as we speak.
Classic doom suitable for doomer porn.
Base on events which are going on there right know truly apocalyptic documentary thriller equaling futuristic dystopian movies from Hollywood could easily be produced.
You know, mobs of derelict drug addicts and other desperados surrounded by blackouts and miles long walls of fire. Between them some desperate souls occupied only with attempts to save their posessions and their loved ones who are about to burn alive.

Do you agree with following assertion:
"For one reason or another California is experiencing fast societal collapse and it is turning into Third World setup as we speak.
It is impossible to know right now if this transition is going to be stopped/reversed in coming decades"
If you can agree with that I will not call you "denier".

[Newfie]

Just a thought, not at all convinced myself, MAYBE the world has become too complex for us to develop class of leaders, folks who have a real grip on the worlds problems? Too many specialist each babbling in their own coded language. They can’t communicate outside their own echo chamber. No generalist left? Or if there are we don’t respect them? Can we even name a few?

[Ibon]

Just a thought, not at all convinced myself, MAYBE the world has become too complex for us to develop class of leaders, folks who have a real grip on the worlds problems? Too many specialist each babbling in their own coded language. They can’t communicate outside their own echo chamber. No generalist left? Or if there are we don’t respect them? Can we even name a few?

It's funny I was thinking also along these lines. No matter who the leaders are we always find some deficiency because nobody, not one single leader can have expertise on all the range of complex issues.

Reminds me of how folks imagine the perfect mate. This super man or super woman that never can be found out there in real life but can be imagined.

Is that what we are doing in expecting our leaders to be flawless in all aspects, just in the same way we imagine the perfect mate that isn't possible?

[EnergyUnlimited]

Just a thought, not at all convinced myself, MAYBE the world has become too complex for us to develop class of leaders, folks who have a real grip on the worlds problems? Too many specialist each babbling in their own coded language. They can’t communicate outside their own echo chamber. No generalist left? Or if there are we don’t respect them? Can we even name a few?

This may go on for a while, then a leader like this one
will come and people will follow.
There is always an easy (and brutal) answer to any imaginable problems and at some point noone will care, is it an *optimal* answer of not.
Never underestimate resolve of The Low Road.

[Nefarious]

Just a thought, not at all convinced myself, MAYBE the world has become too complex for us to develop class of leaders, folks who have a real grip on the worlds problems? Too many specialist each babbling in their own coded language. They can’t communicate outside their own echo chamber. No generalist left? Or if there are we don’t respect them? Can we even name a few?

It's not that the world is to complex,it's to diverse.To many groups and sub groups each thinking that their thoughts and opinions are the correct ones and if everyone else thought and believed as they do everything would be fine.

[Newfie]

Maybe not too diverse, too self righteous.

[Nefarious]

Maybe not too diverse, too self righteous.

Quite right there is that shared commonality "you don't believe as I do so why should I even listen to you? you need to listen to me"
Probably has been that way from the first cities built by man.Just more pronounced now with so many people on the planet, TV news and social media and such.
Reminds me of the five piece art set by Thomas Cole "Course of Empire"
https://www.jcrows.com/cole.html
Except the destruction phase isn't some outside barbarian horde. The horde is us,so secular and polarized we have become, that we destroy ourselves from within.