Indoctrination of children

[notimp]

This is a complicated one. So I gave it the most outrageous title I could think of.

Watch this:


Its in german, but it doesnt matter. You'll get whats happening.

What you are witnessing is public indoctrination of children (give them a feeling of being part of masses, provide them catchy slogans, make them chant, make them jump, make them amplify voices without thinking, give them all the same thought patterns, tell them that thats "good"..).

Basically with "you cant have a pony for your birthday" type story patterns ("But why....?").

But for all the right reasons. (Global warming is a thing, a public mass value change is a strategy to pivot away from growth based economies.)

Without telling them the negative side of what they are striving for. (Less social mobility in societies that dont grow for example, letting everyone suffer through recessions for more years, have your daddy loose his job...)

So does the end rectify the means in this case?

For me it does not. For me thats instrumentalizing people that are too young to understand the full argument, for political gains. ('Get into power.')

Am I the only one that cant help but see it this way?

 

[Enkuler]

So does the end rectify the means in this case?

For me it does not. For me thats instrumentalizing people that are too young to understand the full argument, for political gains. ('Get into power.')

Am I the only one that cant help but see it this way?

There are two problems here.

1) Indoctrination of children

For me the end may justify the means*. You know, when they grow up

• they'll become adults capable of thinking and of seeing the negative sides, and they'll go in the right direction (doing what is needed and try to avoid negative pits, weighing pros and cons, etc)
  
• OR they'll become idiots who never change their minds and always act the way they first learnt how to act, and I'd rather have more of these idiots go in the "not perfect direction but not the worst one either" than have these idiots on the other side, saying that global warming is a hoax to fit whoever's agenda

*not always though. Obviously it needs to be for a good cause to begin with lol. But also, I'd say it needs to be a little bit urgent, just like it is with climate change. For stuff that doesn't impact the whole planet, maybe it is better to play honestly and not be attackable on the means employed.

2) "For political gains" as you put it

And yeah, that's bad. Because in this case the people who indoctrinate others are not even using the correct arguments and stuff, they just try to convince people to join them, using the most dishonest means of persuasion, and that's not how the convinced people are going to become able to think by themselves. Plus they bring discredit to the legitimate cause.

 

[piratesephiroth]

lol how else would the left propagate their stupid ideas?

There are two problems here.
But also, I'd say it needs to be a little bit urgent, just like it is with climate change.

It's only urgent if you get your science from Late Night Comedy shows.

If you actually try to look for the facts you'll see the reality is very different and there's no scientific evidence of such claims that humans are causing climate change.

 

[notimp]

OR they'll become idiots who never change their minds and always act the way they first learnt how to act, and I'd rather have more of these idiots go in the "not perfect direction but not the worst one either" than have these idiots on the other side

Lets leave the 'hoax' part out of it for a moment (because it really isn't - most of our scientists agree..) - and look at the potentially likely outcome here.

The next generation ('those children') will think back of those great moments of group camaraderie (feeling of being in a group) and collective political action they had in their youth - and will always have "we need to do something, for something, something, climate" - ankered positively in their minds.

To them its great adventure -

While all I currently see, is some children entertainers telling them to chant and jump. (The manerisms of some people on stage, are really the exact same.)

So what I'm arguing for is - that you dont do that to children (dont give them the Greta rolemodels - unreflected), do it to grown ups, if you must.

Or in more controversial terms. Children will always be angry, that they cant get a pony, and will always be happy - when they can collectively leave school for a day. And they'll love it, if they can make grown ups listen to them even for a hot minute. (Common plot patterns in childrens literature. ) (As to some extent will adults.) Dont take advantage of the fact, that they willfully arent represented the entire scope of the argument.

Not by Greta. Not by the children entertainers on center stage. Not by the politically motivated more engaged, older subjects of their peers (who later will go into politics).

I look at this, see the design aspect, and get angry. Its as simple as that.

 

[dAVID_]

lol how else would the left propagate their stupid ideas?

It's only urgent if you get your science from Late Night Comedy shows.

If you actually try to look for the facts you'll see the reality is very different and there's no scientific evidence of such claims that humans are causing climate change.

Cognitive dissonance is one of the fatal flaws of the human mind.

 

[Saiyan Lusitano]

Kids nowadays are too politized, back in my days we just enjoyed our childhood.

 

[notimp]

Kids nowadays are too politized, back in my days we just enjoyed our childhood.

Dang it. I think thats wrong as well...

But I wouldn't count them as "politicized". They hardly know the argument they are making. If they knew what they are talking about with a little more depth (because, they had experienced it for themselves f.e., or had an interest in hearing different sides of the argument), Id be all for it.

Example:


It would make me smile.

If they are set to protest on the streets for matters regarding school life or policy - I'm all for it as well.

If they'd protest for a more green, or ecologically just world - without the sense of everyone else telling them they cant have their pony, being someone, that JUST hadn't heard, what they heard in their chanting sessions, I'd be all for it.

But if you tell, them - that they should all fight for a higher principal - and learn how to collectively jump a little - I call foul, and claim its indoctrination.

If you then look up the definition of indoctrination - its literally that. btw. I've covered my flanks on that one.

 

[Saiyan Lusitano]

But I wouldn't count them as "politicized". They hardly know the argument they are making.

Well, the term 'useful idiots' exists for a reason. Virtue signaling may be usable too but those who preach what they say know what it is, though they don't practice it.

 

[notimp]

People cant even jump the fact, that they will happily protest for "something, somtheing climate" on fridays, and then post for instagram pics of their bali vacations on mondays. (While SUVs are the fastest growing segment in car production.)

And then all kinds of fun solutions get proposed, like give everyone a free contingent of six flights a year, and the ones who exceed that would have to buy rights from others - which would really cement in, that this is only about making poor people give up their only theoretical rights entirely, because of economic restrictions.

Then let them talk about them not getting any children, which is a low effort way to actually reach some what they are proposing (and the only one I believe could be potentially working if you sell it to people correctly (one child policy)), but then it conflicts with all the images of children in the media, that pitch you do "something, for something, something climate" in our future. And with many of societys expectations on self preservation.

While people of our generation still havent recognized, that politically their parents are still in the rule, because of the population curve, and exploit them to get gains, the next generation is never expected to get, when they are getting old, and contrast that with the notion, that we already suffered through an economic downturn, and 0% effective growth for 20 years - and you really start questioning, what the heck is going on here.

But the growth potential! Is limited. The same as the entire design of that economy.

Its really just an outlet for people to feel better about themselves, while not being able to do much.

I don't know if we want to introduce children to that too quickly.

(And its freaking grandparents compatible, because they get sentimental about their grandchildren as well. But if its supposed to voluntarily channel their financial assets, its failing as well.)

Hm... Damn, analytical rational mind. Wish I could turn it off some times.

 

[Xzi]

You think people just show up at these types of protests/events without knowing what they're about first? Younger generations are going to be dealing with the fallout of climate change far more than we've had to so far. You don't have the right to tell them what they should and should not be concerned about, and if you're a climate change denier, even less so.

If you actually try to look for the facts you'll see the reality is very different and there's no scientific evidence of such claims that humans are causing climate change.

"If you actually try to look for the facts..."

>Posts random Youtube video from some nobody

If you were actually trying to look for the facts, you'd be reading scientific research papers. Not typing in "youtube.com" and then turning off your brain.

 

[notimp]

Younger generations are going to be dealing with the fallout of climate change far more than we've had to so far.

And we are deling with the fallout of the past generation for the past 10 years so far, are the ones who actually get it rubbed in what it means to sustain a society on 0% growth (while our children will have more again, supposedly).

And should take action based on something no one can sufficiently model, more so than we already do, because of shame narratives and doomsday merchants?

Here is the actually feelable impact on western societies in your childrens lifetimes. Zilt. Almost zero. Because there is no Karma, we actually live in the zones, that projection wise, will have to deal with "a mildly warmer climate". Especially in europe.

Maybe you loose the ability to go skiing in the winter. We are not sure yet.

There are obvious problems with sustainable food production, migration, natural disasters and potential "domino effects" (hm... have been sold on that already once in a lifetime), that have to be mitigated in your childs lifetime, but what do the children on the streets help, when they really have no idea about any of that - and it will not matter at all, when we have revolutions in the street instead.

Now - I personally see this a way to test peoples willingness to suffer even more, because you sell them "the future of your children should be better" one more time.

But this time, without economic development.

And thats a freaking hard sell - when all that the children out there are saying is - that they want to have something, that despite our best efforts, might not be realizable.

You cant have a pony, because you made daddy lose his job.

That part they didn't get? Or wasn't it part of the collective chanting sessions?

Could you at least not resort to mass psychology when you do your indoctrination? Would that be possible?

When I see "sudden mass movements" like that forming, I'm asking myself qui bono, and the answer to that is not pretty.

I also listen to the political statements of our current politicians, and I think, that they are actually reasonable in that regard. They are all but dismissing the political activism entirely. They are playing the real game. Not the "I wish I had a pony" version of it. If you want a stronger pivot into that direction, then vote. And vote with the notion, that in china or america the green party will NEVER be an actual thing in the next 20 years. So vote for destroying your economy faster, than they do. Very lovely.

 

[Xzi]

And we are deling with the fallout of the past generation for the past 10 years so far, are the ones who actually get it rubbed in what it means to sustain a society on 0% growth (while our children will have more again, supposedly).

And should take action based on something no one can sufficiently model, more so than we already do, because of shame narratives and doomsday merchants?

Here is the actually feelable impact on western societies in your childrens lifetimes. Zilt. Almost zero. Because there is no Karma, we actually live in the zones, that projection wise, will have to deal with "a mildly warmer climate". Especially in europe.

There are obvious problems with sustainable food production, migration, natural desasters and potential "domino effects" (hm... have been sold that already once in a lifetime), that have to be mitigated, but what do the children on the streets help, when they really have no idea about anything - and will not matter at all, when we have revolutions in the street.

Now - I personally see this a way to test peoples willingness to suffer even more, because you sell them "the future of your children should be better" one more time.

But this time, without economic development.

And thats a freaking hard sell - when all that the children out there are saying is - that they want to have something, that despite our best efforts, might not be realizable.

You cant have a pony, because you made daddy lose his job.

That part they didn't get? Or wasn't it part of the chanting sessions?

When I see "sudden mass movements" like that forming, I'm asking myself qui bono, and the answer to that is not pretty.

I have no idea what you're talking about. Your primary concern seems to be economics, but we've already hit a point where renewable energy is cheaper per kWH than fossil fuels. Green energy provides jobs and achieving energy independence would also be massively beneficial in multiple ways.

This isn't just a future problem, either. Obviously you don't live in the US, but our natural disasters last year were numerous and horrific. Every year now it seems half the country is on fire while the other half is dealing with hurricanes, tornadoes, and mass flooding. You say you worry about the economics, but continuing to be reactionary instead of proactive would end up costing us trillions extra in the long run.

I don't really feel the need to re-hash the debate on whether climate change is real or not, the important players all believe its real already. The Pentagon lists climate change as one of the top threats to the US at large, and 99% of the scientific community agrees. Only one political party on Earth refuses to acknowledge that the issue isn't a political one, and they're the party of anti-intellectualism.

 

[dAVID_]

I have no idea what you're talking about. Your primary concern seems to be economics, but we've already hit a point where renewable energy is cheaper per kWH than fossil fuels. Green energy provides jobs and achieving energy independence would also be massively beneficial in multiple ways.

This isn't just a future problem, either. Obviously you don't live in the US, but our natural disasters last year were numerous and horrific. Every year now it seems half the country is on fire while the other half is dealing with hurricanes, tornadoes, and mass flooding. You say you worry about the economics, but continuing to be reactionary instead of proactive would end up costing us trillions extra in the long run.

I don't really feel the need to re-hash the debate on whether climate change is real or not, the important players all believe its real already. The Pentagon lists climate change as one of the top threats to the US at large, and 99% of the scientific community agrees. Only one political party on Earth refuses to acknowledge that the issue isn't a political one, and they're the party of anti-intellectualism.

Climate change is not a debate.
Humans having a significant influence on climate change is a known fact.

 

[catlover007]

As someone who's classmates actually went to the demonstration from the first video, I might give some insight. There's a lot of discussion about it going on in Germany. Especially conservative politicians criticise them for being hypocritical (always buying new clothes and smartphone, wanting to travel by plane, …) and of course there's the far right which continues to deny climate change. But there are also parents writing apolgies for their children and teachers preparing for the demonstrations in class. Some people including a friend of mine see this just as a excuse to not go to school for people who attend these protests.

My personal stance on this is that, even if people take this as an excuse, they'll continue to have an excuse until the politics start to move. It's simply stupid how the (German) political landscape is unable to cope with this, besides attacking protest on a formal level.

 

[notimp]

I have no idea what you're talking about. Your primary concern seems to be economics, but we've already hit a point where renewable energy is cheaper per kWH than fossil fuels. Green energy provides jobs and achieving energy independence would also be massively beneficial in multiple ways.

Entirely wrong. You cant put solar everywhere, you cant turn on solar at any point you want, you cant store energy efficiently enough already - and for the entire next 50 years, dependency on natural gas in europe will rise and not sink.

If everything would be solvable economically - you wouldnt need children on the streets.

There are "green investment" innitiatives, that try to bundle funds to get research up in the west again, their return on investment is pittiful - they would be all but faltering, if they hadn't ideological drivers behind them. And they dont have a huge base, which is why they are investing in marketing efforts currently. (Astroturfing, essentially.)

Apart from solar (plan: solar fields in africa and parts of greece) and nuclear (waste issue, safety issues), renewable isnt cheaper. And it isnt cheeper in general if you factor in transport costs.

Then there is the dependency issue, because thanks to the german government, the entire solar industry had to be sold out to china including all the ongoing development innitiatives, because it wasnt self sustainable as an industry. So import all solar modules from china (cheap labor) to then do what in europe?

That also touches on job perspectives. So every chinese manufacturing plant can produce todays battery technology just as well, as everyone in the west does, and solar cell production will never get big in europe again, where is your potentially great economy in europe coming from?

Geothermal? Wind? Marketing?

You know, the industry that has to consume the 30% job loss in car manufacturing, just from the fact, that electric cars are far easier to produce.

While we don't look at a much more competitive market situation, because others can produce the less complicated good just as well.

Thats your main industry in large parts of europe (with parts manufacturing, those are several countries).

So what do you see, that I dont?

My personal stance on this is that, even if people take this as an excuse, they'll continue to have an excuse until the politics start to move. It's simply stupid how the (German) political landscape is unable to cope with this, besides attacking protest on a formal level.

They dont even do that. They simply tell them its not possible in the kindest words political rhetoric can muster. I've watched the interviews with Altmaier. And they do it, because its children. Of course.

 

[Xzi]

Entirely wrong. You cant put solar everywhere, you cant turn on solar at any point you want, you cant store energy efficiently enough already - and for the entire next 50 years, dependency on natural gas in europe will rise and not sink.

Nonsense. I've got several military bases near me that already run on 100% solar. And they converted for exactly the reasons I stated: it makes those bases energy independent, and it's less expensive. Like, you seriously believe the sun's rays are going to dry up before the supply of fossil fuels does? Spoilers: they won't. Fossil fuels will continue to become more expensive as they become harder to find, and it won't be long before we're looking at 3x the price per kWH compared to green energy sources.

 

[dAVID_]

Nonsense. I've got several military bases near me that already run on 100% solar. And they converted for exactly the reasons I stated: it makes those bases energy independent, and it's less expensive. Like, you seriously believe the sun's rays are going to dry up before the supply of fossil fuels does? Spoilers: they won't. Fossil fuels will continue to become more expensive as they become harder to find, and it won't be long before we're looking at 3x the price per kWH compared to green energy sources.

Which military bases?

 

[Xzi]

Which military bases?

The Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs is one of them, I'd have to verify for the others. They've got a massive solar array and their own solar power plant. Pretty cool to see when driving in.

More info:

https://us.sunpower.com/commercial-solar/case-studies/us-air-force-academy/

As a Net Zero Energy base under the Net Zero Energy Installations (NZEI) initiative, the United States Air Force Academy (USAFA) needed to aggressively pursue renewable energy to meet its goals. The USAFA's key target is to produce 100% of its electricity needs on the base by 2015. Collaborating with Colorado Springs Utilities (CSU), the academy sought a solar partner to develop the largest ground-based solar system possible within their budget. After a rigorous selection process, one solar company stood out with the experience, technology, and financial know-how to build a successful solar project to military standards--SunPower. Working together, SunPower and CSU designed and installed a 6 megawatt solar power system on time and on budget. The solar power system will provide up to 11% of the base's needed electricity, and potentially, it could provide 15% by 2015 as the USAFA continues to reduce its energy demands.

Of course, this is a bit outdated. They've installed even more since 2015.

 

[catlover007]

What's also never taken into account is that every form of energy production carries a hidden cost. Non renewables would be far more expensive if you take in account these factors. Of course renewable aren't free of them, but people who complain about toxic waste from the production of solar panels or how ugly wind turbines look never saw a coal pit.

 

[notimp]

Nonsense. I've got several military bases near me that already run on 100% solar. And they converted for exactly the reasons I stated: it makes those bases energy independent, and it's less expensive.

Absolutely impossible. Do they have snow in the winter? Do they have clouds forming? Do they have batteries that they can run on for half a month if they have to. Did they produce the solar cells in country?

Where did they get the surface area to put the solar cells on? It isnt there on roofetops alone. What do they do if they experience a technical outage (grid?), they cant be switched on quickly - to support sudden outages, because the sun doesnt care. There is not even one city in the entire world, that even proposes - marketing wise, that it would be able to run even mostly on solar.

Do they have miletary equipment, that has to move further than 100 miles from base? Do they wait for half a day to recharge in case of emergency?

Those are not made up problems - those are real. Read up on it. The issue is not "corruption" here, the issue is peoples expectations of what can be done not meeting with reality.

Why does china have an air polution issue at this point, do you think? They are producing the god darn product, even they arent switching to it at large scale any time soon. (And yet they have NO oil. The have to almost import their entire energy needs.) Instead they drew up new contracts to import russian gas. While russian energy companies are now very quickly moving into the arctic, into territories they can now reach via icebreakers to get more oil. They develop entire regions, that havent been on the map in the past currently.

And we should import that to give them what? Souvenirs?

Not everyones economic model depends on bombing the world to then take free oil. Or destroying the environment through fracking.

The US tries to sell europe on natural fracking gas shipped in with tankers currently. Not solar panels.