Indoctrination of children

Discussion in 'World News, Current Events & Politics' started by notimp, Mar 16, 2019.

  1. lembi2001

    lembi2001 GBAtemp Fan

    Member
    6
    Dec 29, 2015
    I'm just waiting for the flat earther's to wade in on this. Full lunacy will have then descended on the Temp
     
  2. notimp
    OP

    notimp GBAtemp Addict

    Member
    9
    Sep 18, 2007
    Children were on streets to protest for something, something, climate.

    Organizers told children, that what they were for was to now act to reach the 1.5°C warming goal (at least part of the organizers), but the world already decided to maybe act towards 2°C warming as a goal of max global warming (till 2080/2100) instead.

    The difference is when you have to get out of fossile energy sources. Over 20 years, or over 10.

    Organizers for them children told them they should shout for 10. So children shouted. And jumped. We still go for 20, for BETTER reasons (not to tank economies, has to be based on international coordination, or reverse feedback loops come into existence). So STFU children. Jump a little less. Get that glint out of your eyes. ;)

    Both are the same thing essentially. Its all a question about how fast you switch entire sectors to other energy sources. Thats the entire question.

    Children just said everything thats already being done (at least in europe), so peoples started asking, why you on streets, then children screamed "POLITICIANS GOT TO ACT QUICKER", and demanded targets to shift to 1.5°C max, which is entirely delusional. (Climate summits worked for decades to reach the current international agreement).


    The more intelligent folks, might acknowledge, that those "popular movements" currently are for the "leeway" of "up to 2°C max" - but then politics shouldnt be their "activist target".

    And if they start to try to convince their parents to really take another big hit in economical development, because of +2% more snow chance in 60 years in europe you tell them: "You've been played - now drop your romantic image of what a PR based movement can do." When you grow up, you will now be more likely to vote for the green party, maybe donate to Greenpeace, thats all.

    The thing is, in Europe the climate accord is basically a thing ALL parties agree upon, so why we have to have protests in the street for the only issue everyone agrees on, is enraging to me. It feels organized, and it feels like a front.

    Their call to action is "do more better, quickly! #youfigureitout" for something, something, climate.

    Most of them dont even know what climate models are - simply because they haven't been to university yet. Same with international accords. Trade, or international economic regulations.

    What, 60% of non-vertebrates are dying out? Put them next to the ones that already have. I will not live to a day where 'biodiversity' becomes an actionable political term for front and center politics. But now the children are on "page one" of newspapers - for being children.

    I freaking hate, what this means for democracy. Maybe have to reread "Crowds and Power" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elias_Canetti) but as far as I remember it wasnt a great read.
     
    Last edited by notimp, Mar 26, 2019
  3. notimp
    OP

    notimp GBAtemp Addict

    Member
    9
    Sep 18, 2007
    Oh, look at that - I'm in agreement with a George Soros Outlet (Project Syndicate) once more...

    https://www.project-syndicate.org/c...ism-scaring-children-by-bjorn-lomborg-2019-03
     
    Last edited by notimp, Apr 12, 2019
  4. Xzi

    Xzi Virtual Bartman

    pip Contributor
    18
    Dec 26, 2013
    United States
    Spiraling Out
    Man we're way past the point of being scared into action, the consequences for the planet have already started to become plainly visible. Just watch 'Our Planet' on Netflix for examples.
     
  5. notimp
    OP

    notimp GBAtemp Addict

    Member
    9
    Sep 18, 2007
    Also, I dont have netflix.

    ;)

    This for once isnt a diversion attempt, because its basically coming from a thinktank, not a political bureau. It is indicating - between the lines - that If we do, what the children are campaigning for - revolutional tendencies in the west would rise, because you are raising economic pressures at the same time.

    Also this time it isnt regional. So if you put in place laws, that make yourself "more climate friendly" than the competitor country, the competitor country just gets more competitive.

    This is what all the climate summits were for - to get a framework in which consolidated action was agreed upon, so you dont get those "outcompeting your neighbor" trends. Now the children on the streets scream, that we must outcompete our neighbors better. In essence.

    Also - I show you videos of oilspilled regions from the 80+ the next time I'm on this site. Those were regional problems, highly visible - and still, nothing was done, because of economic grounds.

    This time, something is done - but the children scream, more better, faster - something. Politicians are the baddies. Which - this time around they arent. ;)
     
    Last edited by notimp, Apr 12, 2019
  6. Xzi

    Xzi Virtual Bartman

    pip Contributor
    18
    Dec 26, 2013
    United States
    Spiraling Out
    Well, suffice it to say it's a David Attenborough-narrated documentary, and for a kindly old educator, he's not fucking around any more when it comes to climate change. In one episode there's like three solid minutes of footage where walruses are falling off cliffs to their deaths because of ice melt. As I said: plainly-visibly consequences.

    Teens have every right to be pissed at leadership for failing to act. They'll be the ones who have to witness the most consequences of climate change throughout their lifetime, and it isn't even consumers who are the biggest driver of it. It's mega-corporations like Monsanto that simply don't give a fuck.
     
    Last edited by Xzi, Apr 12, 2019
  7. notimp
    OP

    notimp GBAtemp Addict

    Member
    9
    Sep 18, 2007
    I'll watch it then. :) Nothing against Attenborough. :)
     
    Xzi likes this.
  8. Panzerfaust

    Panzerfaust Member

    Newcomer
    2
    Oct 25, 2018
    Germany
    that's not true at all. nobody denies, that the climate is changing...cause the climate changes since the very begining of the earths existence. what you mean is, that the climate is somehow affected by humans and THAT is debatable. as far as I know, there is zero scientific evidence for that too.

    BTW: I talked to a trainee at my workplace and she told me, that her class decided not to participate on fridays (cause skipping school, you know...) but on saturdays...and guess what, out of 25 students, 3 appeared to a demonstration...and a tiny demonstration that was ^^ under 15 ppl from the whole school.

    the point is, students do everything to skip school. they are not interested in climate at all.
     
  9. notimp
    OP

    notimp GBAtemp Addict

    Member
    9
    Sep 18, 2007
    Not even thats that debatable. Because you have all but a consensus (about 95% to 5%) in science. And with complex matters that cant be entirely modeled or completely tested in experimental settings (the key is, that you have to be able to repeat experiments (repeatability)) - that (95% to 5% of climate scientists agree), is the actual best (most conclusive) you can hope for.

    So climate change is partly (larger extent) man made. Also - we have to do something about it to mitigate its outcomes (countries for years now, for example manufactured artificial erosion zones around population dense zones in coastal regions (people mostly settle in coastal regions, or along water ways), but we need to do more, we need to moderate a transition, pivot away from fossile fuels, somehow manage an energy transition, without buying solar panels exclusively from the chinese every 25 years, all that has already been debated and argued about, and is coming.

    The current US administration isnt on line (fracking is beautiful), but many larger regions within the US are - so the US currently not being part of the Paris climate accord is mitigated. You have pledges on other levels.

    What the Fridays for future movement, at least in western europa is advocating though is to speed up the process by 8-10 years with "political ambition". Thats about it. Reasoning. 2% more chance of snow in the winter in western Europe in the lifetime of the children that are out on the streets. (Difference between the 1.5°C and 2°C goals, where it is important to note, that the 1.5°C goal could not be agreed upon internationally. We went with a 2°C max goal.)

    Climate change is unfair that way. We in Europe are probably least faced by it, just because of our geographic location.

    2°C internationally is still no small feat. It means more famines. drinkingwater shortages, refugee movements, more natural disasters, and - yes, less biodiversity (60% of non vertebrates - gone, as supposed to 30% or 40% (dindt look that number up again, please double check)).


    But then - in the western world, you are up against this:
    https://www.project-syndicate.org/c...neoliberal-policy-west-by-diane-coyle-2019-04

    Asking people to act quicker, for a non distinct goal ("chance of reaching the 1.5°C target that wasnt agreed upon"), ruining your relative economic competitiveness - towards the detriment of a generation, that already suffered from the financial crises, basically fixed wages over the last 20 years, 0% intrest rates, and the inability to own affordable living space (because that has become subject to speculation) -- because of a religion ("something, something, for something climate") - leads to adverse effects (less CO2 emitted in your country, because of oil saved means oil gets cheaper, means (f.e.) China will buy more of it (f.e.). And raises the propensity of civil unrest.

    In essence - economically - the children on the streets are unjust as fuck, because they want to look good, looking concerned about high concept goals on the instagram. This is partly provocation - but also has more than just some truth to it.

    If they would act as an activist movement to "better peoples behavior" - first, "shame" and "fear" narratives are a VERY bad idea (they raise contempt and uneasiness), second "shame" shouldnt work as a motivator for the masses, it only leads to double standards, and third THEY WOULD HAVE TO ADDRESS THEIR PEERS (/themselves), to bring voluntary efforts to the table on top of political action. What they are doing instead - is blaming politics, because for them as a movement that wants to grow, that works better (everyone finds it great fun to be mad at politicians). Again, essentially. Provocatively stated.

    Politics is not to blame in this case. They already acted, and got the consensus out of it that was possible.


    Now - if Germany f.e. has the money to buy CO2 certificates or be less bright and make penal payments (as to the climate accord see f.e.: https://www.carbontracker.org/eu-carbon-prices-could-double-by-2021-and-quadruple-by-2030/) and still not switch away from coal until 2038 rather than 2030, that actually should be ok. (The money they pay - allows for other initiatives to be financed.)

    For the economy it means, that they arent a first mover on green technology, and thats about it. They still can be innovative (in fact they have more time for it, before they have to scale..), but its now become a debate over "how fast they move".

    Children say "faster, now". Me says: Isnt going to happen, because its not what we agreed upon in Paris, and to voluntarily ruin your economic prosperity, is only something that currently children can ask for --

    but that breaks entirely - if you look, lets say at 25 year olds, instead of 16 year olds. Because what Fridays for Future currently protests for is for them to have a worse economy - now. So Chinas oil payments get less costly, because germans use less oil.


    Hence - economically, and from a PR perspective (concerning peoples livelyhoods) Fridays for Future makes NO sense. In fact - reverse sense. But then you factor in that its a religion of people wanting to present virtues on instagram... and you get the trend.

    And even then - them trying to address local politicians is about the worst thing they can do. (Then children, have their great rolemodel state they want to live in concept - and everyone else outcompetes them economically.) But at the same time, they dont want to look like the buzzkills, that guildttrip you into not traveling and eating meat anymore, so they need a villain and that has become politics, for no apparent reason.

    US (partly) excluded, because they - well - excluded themselves from the climate accord, because of national interest (we want to sell our fracking gas).

    Thats a rough cut on the issue.

    It basically states, that the children on the streets dont know what they are doing.

    It is, or I - am in no way refuting man made climate change. If thats still your tagline, I'm afraid, you ought to update your talking points.. ;) Because that discussion is over and dealt with. We have binding agreements to act on climate change in every country in the world. Apart from the US.

    Thats not something you'd need an activist movement in the streets of Europe for. Thats already a political reality.
     
    Last edited by notimp, Apr 12, 2019
  10. cots

    cots Suspended

    Suspended
    8
    Dec 29, 2014
    United States
    I do believe that our existence on Earth effects the climate. I don't think that climate change is a hoax. However, I think it's been used to control other people and keep the rich wealthy and certain political players in power. Your video reminds me of those "doomsday" scenarios (supposed documentaries) produced by the Liberal media back in the late 80's and 90's that claimed we've reached the tipping point in oil production and that we would have a barren landscape and total disaster would strike by 2010.

    I suppose you will always have those "The sky is falling" types and the morons who follow them, but the world hasn't ended and due to the types of things like those documentaries and teachers in school teaching the end of the world is near I really don't pay such stuff much interest. We've only been keeping track of the weather for a short period in history and from the measly 40 some years I've been around not much has changed (an example is the entire Hurricane situation (as I've been in my fare share of them) - a bad one comes along that doesn't even compare to the devastation caused by ones 20 years ago and suddenly "it's the worst hurricane in years".) On a flip note it also reminds me of the Christian pastors who tell you the world is ending and ask for money so you'll have a seat reserved in heaven (I don't see much distinction between the two actually).

    I do believe that using oil does indeed affect the climate, but so do natural events on our planet and out in space that are beyond our control. I don't see how trying to scream "We're all doomed unless you pay us more money" is even being considered as these people going around toting these ideas aren't in any sort of position to help nor do they rarely in their own personal lives try to reduce their own personal "carbon footprint".

    I don't like automobiles - they are a top contributor of death and pollute the environment so creating "green" cars that in all reality use more energy to produce and sustain then normal "dirty" cars do doesn't make much sense to me. Personally, I think we should do away with them all together. It would help reduce the overweight people problem, make communities more like communities, cut pollution and keep a large percentage of the population from dying. I admire some of the larger cities that are starting to actually get rid of their roadways as I think that is more of an actual solution then trying to scare people into giving you their money in which you will use to extort control over them for even more of their money.

    — Posts automatically merged - Please don't double post! —

    There isn't much of a difference in what they are doing than what happens when you're brought into the school system in the USA. Instead of being taught how to think, how to do math, how the body works you're inundated with people telling you what you should think, dumbfounded methods of doing math that leave you unprepared for real mathematical studies and limit your ability to perform normal jobs, theories on how the body should work and all sorts of other political garbage. I haven't been in school in a long time, but they used to make you perform rituals like the "Pledge Your Allegiance" to the Homeland and participate in activities based solely on their version of history (singing songs, playing political based games, etc ...).

    I suppose if you happen to disagree with the political influence that is taking place due to the fact that you disagree with the particular politics than you may dislike it. How about if they were including political ideals that you agreed with? Would that be okay? See, I don't think that "school" should be involved in politics. I think they should teach you how to think independently, read, write, do math and spell - that's it. Maybe later in schooling teaching you how to work on cars, work with wood (trade skills) is also important, but get rid of all of the stuff that isn't a core fundamental to being able to survive in society. I don't need nor ever wanted someone telling me how I should think about political issues and who I should vote for because own their personal bias (I tell people they "should vote" and not "who to vote for").
     
    Last edited by cots, Apr 14, 2019
  11. piratesephiroth

    piratesephiroth I wish I could read

    Member
    10
    Sep 5, 2013
    Brazil
    Yeah, climate change is definitely real because that's just how the planet works.
    Now there's no solid evidence that it has any connection to human activity.
     
  12. cots

    cots Suspended

    Suspended
    8
    Dec 29, 2014
    United States
    Well, for an example we have an hole in the ozone layer of the atmosphere caused by various toxic gases we overproduced. I'm not exactly sure what filling our air with other toxic pollutants, filling our oceans with plastic garbage, filling our lakes and rivers with toxic substances or setting off nuclear bombs is doing to the Earth, but by all visible standards it doesn't look pretty to me. I'm sure we do have an influence on the change - not so much as say when a volcano goes off or radiation from the sun hits us, but it's not helping the situation.
     
  13. notimp
    OP

    notimp GBAtemp Addict

    Member
    9
    Sep 18, 2007
    Regarding the "hoax" narrative. Lets look at this in broad lines.

    Lets say everyone knows, that the UN isnt working anymore, neither is the WTO - at least not in "being aspirational projects" anyone gives a fuck about. The climate summits are at least another structure where many nations get together and talk about economic development. Not just regions, not just economic blocks.

    Lets go full haywire - and say, climate change is all just a narrative to cap economic development and do that structurally, so in a coordinated fashion. Even if you choose not to 'believe' (more on that later) in climate change, there are other aspects, that will make it necessary for us not to "grow" on an oil based economy anymore. (If everyone in china wants to own two cars, ...)

    So in a sense its all a big "when does the pivot (I like that word.. ;) ) take place". :) China may like it to show the world, that they take leadership on this issue, while the US does not for example - so thats part of a potential political play - but thats really just "who cares" from most of our daily lives perspectives.

    The point I want to make is, that you can look at the actions that take place currently and say - well, if they take place, and if they cost that much - thats sort of a reality. What I mean by that is, f.e. the aformentioned erosion zones (sea walls), that will get erected.

    Listen to this: h**ps://youtu.be/RoWXvMQ3xqg?t=3581 and you've got a definite "parts of Brooklyn and Queens will be abandoned within a generation" message. Thats a pretty definitive statement. :) You should be able to test "its all a hoax" against that.. ;)

    Now disclaimer, I dont think much about that podcast, and listening to that NYT "climate reporter", feels largely like doomsday jockey meets "loves the attention - personality type", so I'll not have you watch the entire thing, but that snippet stuck in my mind. :) And there is a positive to this as well - the guy selling the Greta tagline here to a US audience, is filled to the brim with climate change talking points, so you get a quick cross section of everything thats out there in a short time. He might not be the best at weighing stuff, and simply likes the talking points, that sound the most outrageous, but then - you can filter, however you like to.. ;)


    Now coming from the other perspective - why is it hip to deny climate change?

    1. Humans are built that way - what we dont like, we ignore. What we dont like, and what makes our life worse, with no propensity to make it better, we ignore much more intensely. ;)

    2. The US just became the largest net exporter of natural gas, and enegery independent, meaning they can control the worlds natural resources consumption, by price movements. If and when they buy Saudi Oil, for example molds the price of oil for the entire rest of the world, and because they've shed much of the external dependency (Canada counted as internal ;) ), they can act freely here - which is a definitive power momentum, they are NOT willing to let go of just because of a climate target.

    3. Because the US pumped up natural energy production in country to a large extent - those sectors have become important economic factors. Hence, there is lobbying and PR.

    4. All of that is a trajectory, thats important over the next 20-30 years. Because thats the period the US "bought" themselves in terms of energy independence - its not even a generation. After that you look at the same problems the rest of the world does currently, again.

    5. But at the same time China is a net energy importer (they dont have any oil, they dont have much coal, ...) so controlling the global energy sector is very much whats interesting to the US right now. China on the other hand - at climate summits, that talk about pricing carbon emissions - short term hates it, long term very much its in their interest as well. (If goals are reasonable, they are still the factory of the world.) Europe, also net importer - same story.

    Thats the economic side. Now about the "its a hoax" statement. Who would say that in this current environment? The critical thinker, that weighs standpoints, or the nitwit thats straight financed by fossile fuel interests which ONLY will be that important for maybe 30 years max (declining sector, if they dont diversify.. ;) ).

    Also there is the propensity in human nature to dismiss everything we dont like. Especially if it is connected to responsibilities we are called out upon not acting on.

    In my concept of reality - this is far more likely to be the case. :) Now - where we meet on common ground again is, that it doesnt matter - you dont pivot a global climate summit goal - by mobilizing children in Europe to bash politicians for no reason.

    The popular movements got something HORRIBLY wrong in that regard currently (children are dumb, if you think about it.. ;) ) - your role would not be to convince politics to take harsher action, your role would be to convince yourselves to do so. But thats not popular. And fear, and economic decline, and constraint - are about the worst talking points for a popular movement in general, so you divert and bash politicians instead. Also you need childrens eyes to sell it "because nobody can be mad at them".

    Probably. ;) And because if you make 25 year olds sell it, then they are actively campaigning for a worse economic future for their families. Which makes NO sense. :)
     
    Last edited by notimp, Apr 14, 2019
  14. notimp
    OP

    notimp GBAtemp Addict

    Member
    9
    Sep 18, 2007
    I take back my comment on Attenborough.

    If you watch the first five minutes of this, he currently is more into producing horror pron, with barely true statements ("ITS GOING TO BE DESASter (if we continue on our current trajectory)" - which we arent, "Its even progressing faster, than many believed", "there isn't much time left">intercut into>the science is now clear, with a countdown orchestra tune undercut and other FUN moments like that.)

    This is the worst thing, I've seen, that has ever come out of the BBC.

    Now watch it. Because I said so.

    It simply takes people for stupid morons, and then uses all kinds of filmmaking suspense tricks and rhetorical quiffs, to make - disaster porn.

    Attenborough narrated.

    Facts they probably get right, presentation is an insult.

    — Posts automatically merged - Please don't double post! —

    Exactly 02:20 minutes into it until the Greta is presented in an emotional home story fashion. Even before the tile roll. Nothing against her, but eff this presentation.
     
    Last edited by notimp, Apr 19, 2019
  15. notimp
    OP

    notimp GBAtemp Addict

    Member
    9
    Sep 18, 2007
    I clipped the beginning, and an emotional setpiece part from the first 20 minutes of the BBC documentary with facts in the title.
    https://streamable.com/paseg

    https://streamable.com/yihis
    On the second one I refused to also include the part where they went into "its been a miracle that we were saved, and we thought that we would die" - with intercuts of a lake and burning trees, because they were saved by a boat. I couldnt take it. To me thats just emotional manipulation pure and unaltered.
     
    Last edited by notimp, Apr 19, 2019
  16. notimp
    OP

    notimp GBAtemp Addict

    Member
    9
    Sep 18, 2007
    Interesting thing I just noticed. If you tell people David Attenborough just narrated a manipulative Documentary intro, that uses suspense tricks of filmmaking and intentionally tendential language - on the BBC.

    (For a good cause, and with correct arguments in the rest of the documentary.)

    In a thread called "indoctrination of children".

    They stay away - and dont watch it.

    Should have seen that one coming.. *huh* ;)

    But on the details, I'm still - arguably - correct. Its just, that people are more into tonality... ;)

    Always. ;)
     
  17. piratesephiroth

    piratesephiroth I wish I could read

    Member
    10
    Sep 5, 2013
    Brazil
  18. notimp
    OP

    notimp GBAtemp Addict

    Member
    9
    Sep 18, 2007
    Last edited by notimp, May 1, 2019
Loading...