241–250 of 315 posts
For those who didn't read the article, the conclusion is: "probably not". This is an example of how an idea is granted false legitimacy by having a catchy alliterative name.
Technically, the legitimacy of this idea is unknown, necessarily.
This is an example of how heuristic predictions about reality (and the future of it) can easily be mistaken for facts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not necessarily. Tax carbon heavily and then redistribute the tax equally among all citizens. Anyone using above average carbon net pays into the system, anyone using below average gets a net payout. Then markets, our most advanced coordination/optimization method can be utilized to figure out how to reduce our carbon emissions.
The goal is to reduce total use of carbon based fuel sources, not just redistribute wealth. While I agree that redistributing wealth should also be a goal, any solution that doesn’t lower total consumption is useless, so the pain of less consumption would be felt by anyone consumer more than average (which is probably everyone in the developed world).
1) tax rate: $/ton of CO2
2) wealth distribution: 100% goes to state vs 100% goes back to population or anywhere inbetween.
The two knobs are independent. You could crank tax rate of co2 way up while still equally dividing the revenue generated and heavily discouraging co2 emissions.
I wonder what percentage of people want to see huge historical changes at this point. I certainly feel that the past decades were too stable, then stagnant, and it feels like covid is accelerating the moves considerably. If anything, i want more of it
So in other words, you are tired of "move slow and preserve things" and want more "move fast and break things"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not necessarily. Tax carbon heavily and then redistribute the tax equally among all citizens. Anyone using above average carbon net pays into the system, anyone using below average gets a net payout. Then markets, our most advanced coordination/optimization method can be utilized to figure out how to reduce our carbon emissions.
Exactly right, almost all carbon tax proposals include a divident that is redistributed to people to offset the new charges. The majority of people end up getting more back than they are taxed. The problem is the perception problem at the gas pump or heating bill.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So in other words, you are tired of "move slow and preserve things" and want more "move fast and break things"
moving fast and breaking things are orthogonal
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> As for examples of pivotal moments, WW2 is a good example. We came very close to the world being completely dominated by Orwell style authoritarian one party states. I doubt that would have lasted for long. Fortunately enough for humanity, free human are more productive than slaves. Compare also https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FascistButIneffi... and https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DystopiaI…
Total subjugation is surprisingly stable, you end up with a poor society but starving peasants don’t revolt nearly as much as you might think. Looking at say English history you find various factions fighting each other, but it’s the upper crust instigating things. Similarly, Tsarist russia became less stable after industrialization and a rising standard of living. In the end war is expensive because fighters aren’t…
East Germany vs West Germany; North Korea vs South Korea - and that's in less than a century. On a longer timescale, think Ming and Qing dynasties compared to Europe on the same timeframe - China was much more stable during that time, but stability was not sufficient in the long run. However, the current PRC is perhaps a counterexample, though there is a lot of nuance, external conditions and multiple very different approaches that the China leadership tried out during the last 50 years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the Cold War, and even WW2 are part of the current period when it comes to the ‘hinge of history’ argument. They’re not saying this year is the most influential, or even this decade. I think it comes down to the explosive industrial growth and technological advances over the last few hundred years, and next hundred years or so. It’s a unique confluence of incredible capability with little understanding of the…
I'm afraid democracies are inherently unstable. Athenian lasted 200 years and got swallowed up by Macedonian autocracy. Roman lasted 500 years and got overthrown by the army. Polish lasted 350 years and the parliament voted to allow neighbouring empires to divide the country. The US is at 250 years and people are seriously worried about it devolving into either Gilead or Cyberpunk any moment now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Nobody 100 years ago had the slightest clue that the industrialization at the time could cause global warming, for example. This is incorrect. The first measurements and effects were calculated at the end of the 19th Century (quoted as 1896). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_scie...
This, again, proves that as an educated society we need to decisively counter the for-profit lies of influential corporations. There is a fundamental problem that may cost us severely in the not too distant future. Fossil fuel companies have paid large sums to lie about the effects of their products on climate change, just like tobacco companies have directly killed innumerous people by lying about the negative healt…
Who do you think has or rather should have more power than corporations? The state! And who is constantly crying for a less influential state? The current US administration.
As long as we as the voters do not allow the state to be the one in power but rather companies it will be companies doing whats best for them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not just democracies. I can't think of a system of governance that's stable over centuries. Oppressive regimes tend to implode once amassed suffering reaches a peak of rebellion, or evolve into something more benign (and potentially get conquered then). Even Rome, the long-lasting empire, wasn't ruled the same way throughout its history. I think that's what GP meant when they wrote that "we could end up in a sup…
The millenary histories of the Egyptian and Chinese empires disagree. Yes, dynasties came and went, but those polities endured for thousands of years—indeed one could argue that the ongoing governance of China by the Communist Party is just the latest dynastic swing.
Oh, also switching dynasties frequently resulted in the entire previous royal family being summarily executed.
For a brief(?) summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynasties_in_Chinese_history