Teens promise to fix "climate change" with great idea

[Iamapirate]

Whenever a teenager tells you how to fix the world, you should probably ignore them.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

whenever a teenager tells you how to fix the world, you should probably ignore them.

 

[osaka35]

When you're not trained in how scientist speak, the meaning and results of research can be transformed into something completely different after it goes through a few layers of reporting.

For example:
people say "theory", "hypothesis", "law of", or "opinion" all pretty interchangeably in every day speech.

In science, those words have specific definitions which must be used accurately.
Hypothesis is an educated guess, which you prove or disprove through various methods of experimentation/etc.
A Theory is a massive collection of results from experimentation, of observed natural laws (law of gravity, etc), and other things, with the result being able to predict future events and *explain* the mechanism which allows for all these things to happen.

Basically, a hypothesis is the first step, and a theory is the largest milestone (in the hard sciences. Soft sciences use the words differently). When we talk about climate change, we're talking about a well-established and well-supported theory. There is an insanely massive body of work which crosses an incredibly array of different, non-related fields, which have tested, explained, and created data (as in, results of experimentation) and it all points to the same thing.

If you want to learn about the science behind climate change, you have to first understand how science works. Not just the words and how they ought to be used, but why they're used that way and why it's important.

 

[omgcat]

Whenever a teenager tells you how to fix the world, you should probably ignore them.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

whenever a teenager tells you how to fix the world, you should probably ignore them.

When someone autistic enough to cross the Atlantic ocean on a 60ft boat with solar cells and turbines tells you something is fucked up, i would probably listen.

 

[Iamapirate]

When someone autistic enough to cross the Atlantic ocean on a 60ft boat with solar cells and turbines tells you something is fucked up, i would probably listen.

children don't know anything about the world.

 

[morvoran]

you can provably upset her though & it hurts us more than it hurts her. That is what all these climate change deniers can't seem to understand no matter how many times we tell them. Sad!

Oh, so you're saying Mother Nature is a liberal? Ok, that explains it. Man-made climate change is Trump's fault because he denied it exists and that pissed off mother nature.
SMF solved the riddle everybody. Nothing more to see here.

A Theory is a massive collection of results from experimentation, of observed natural laws (law of gravity, etc), and other things, with the result being able to predict future events and *explain* the mechanism which allows for all these things to happen.

Theories are not used to predict future events, but rather, to assume future events. They are used to "explain" why something happens through a hypothesis assumed to be true, not to explain the actual reason that something happens as there is no concrete proof to back them up.

Theories can be proven untrue, but not the other way around as they are nothing more than "scientific guesses" (or hypotheses) that can only be assumed true. A hypothesis proven true through is the scientific method is a "scientific fact", not a theory.

This whole "human caused climate change" idea is a theory. It is a guess that utilizes only the data that backs up this theory while leaving out the data that would prove it untrue. This is why there are "climate change deniers" because it has not been proven to be a scientific fact while evidence shows that it is also untrue.


theory
noun
the·o·ry | \ ˈthē-ə-rē

, ˈthir-ē\
plural theories
Definition of theory
1 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena the wave theory of light
2a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn
b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all
3a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation
b : an unproved assumption : conjecture
c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject theory of equations
4 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art music theory
5 : abstract thought : speculation
6 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another

 

[osaka35]

Oh, so you're saying Mother Nature is a liberal? Ok, that explains it. Man-made climate change is Trump's fault because he denied it exists and that pissed off mother nature.
SMF solved the riddle everybody. Nothing more to see here.




Theories are not used to predict future events, but rather, to assume future events. They are used to "explain" why something happens through a hypothesis assumed to be true, not to explain the actual reason that something happens as there is no concrete proof to back them up.

Theories can be proven untrue, but not the other way around as they are nothing more than "scientific guesses" (or hypotheses) that can only be assumed true. A hypothesis proven true through is the scientific method is a "scientific fact", not a theory.

This whole "human caused climate change" idea is a theory. It is a guess that utilizes only the data that backs up this theory while leaving out the data that would prove it untrue. This is why there are "climate change deniers" because it has not been proven to be a scientific fact while evidence shows that it is also untrue.


theory
noun
the·o·ry | \ ˈthē-ə-rē

, ˈthir-ē\
plural theories
Definition of theory
1 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena the wave theory of light
2a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn
b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all
3a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation
b : an unproved assumption : conjecture
c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject theory of equations
4 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art music theory
5 : abstract thought : speculation
6 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another

Dictionaries follow usage, they do not create it. They're also not the most accurate things in the world. They're the "ehh, close enough" and should be considered a rough starting point for understanding usage and understanding of a term. It's really hard to boil down a complex concept to a singular statement. Which means they tend to be terrible and atrocious starting points when it comes to science, which tends to be pretty complex. understanding a "theory" takes far more than a single sentence.

As for the rest of the definitions beyond the first one, I stated there is how it's normally used in everyday speech (which are what those definitions highlighted are). The first one is...close to being correct, but could mislead some who don't understand already what theory means.

Your understanding of theory and hypothesis are incorrect. This is not how these words or concepts are used. If you want to understand what's being said about climate change, you have to understand what's being said about it.

Predicting future events is a big part of verifying the validity of a theory. Or rather, explaining and detailing a mechanism which created all the observed and tested phenomena in the literature.

Let's pull on a common knowledge example of this. Einstein's theory of relativity, right? Pulls from loads of data, of research and experiments, and laws they were aware of back in the day. But it requires certain things to be true in order for the mechanism explained to be accurate. As in...it predicts future events, it predicts things to happen/be happening/etc. that are independently testable. For Einstein, that meant gravity would bend light. So scientist around the globe tried to take pictures of the sun during a total solar eclipse. If Einstein's the mechanisms which constitute Einstein's theories were valid, you should be able to see stars behind the sun we shouldn't be able to see otherwise. And they did! the mechanism was used to predict a scenario we didn't think to look for before (seeing stars behind the sun), and thus was validated to a certain degree.

Here's a quality reading from Isaac Asimov, and I think it may help a lot.

http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm

 

[morvoran]

Predicting future events is a big part of verifying the validity of a theory. Or rather, explaining and detailing a mechanism which created all the observed and tested phenomena in the literature.

While it is true that they can "predict" results, scientific predictions are nothing more than educated guesses (or assumptions). Predictions of the future can only be assumptions as we are unable to know the future until it happens.

Dictionaries follow usage, they do not create it. They're also not the most accurate things in the world. They're the "ehh, close enough" and should be considered a rough starting point for understanding usage and understanding of a term.

You're getting dictionaries mixed up with Wikipedia.

Your understanding of theory and hypothesis are incorrect. This is not how these words or concepts are used. If you want to understand what's being said about climate change, you have to understand what's being said about it.

No, that may be your hypothesis, but a theory is one step up from a hypothesis as it only has evidence that supports it (correlation over causation). They are not proven true as that would mean they are no longer theories.

For Einstein, that meant gravity would bend light. So scientist around the globe tried to take pictures of the sun during a total solar eclipse. If Einstein's the mechanisms which constitute Einstein's theories were valid, you should be able to see stars behind the sun we shouldn't be able to see otherwise. And they did!

One set of evidence that can back up part of his theory does not make it "scientific law". That is why it is still called the "theory of relativity".

 

[osaka35]

While it is true that they can "predict" results, scientific predictions are nothing more than educated guesses (or assumptions). Predictions of the future can only be assumptions as we are unable to know the future until it happens.

You're getting dictionaries mixed up with Wikipedia.

No, that may be your hypothesis, but a theory is one step up from a hypothesis as it only has evidence that supports it (correlation over causation). They are not proven true as that would mean they are no longer theories.

One set of evidence that can back up part of his theory does not make it "scientific law". That is why it is still called the "theory of relativity".

Wikipedia tends to be more accurate than a dictionary. Doesn't mean it's overly accurate, but a whole page with sources compared to one over-simplified sentence? Dictionaries are a good *starting point*, same for wikipedia. But should never, ever be considered an authority on a definition. Because when it comes to science, and most everything in life, the details are everything.

it's pretty straight forward. Just...google it. Google all of this. I can set you up with some basic science videos to get you started, make you a youtube playlist, if you'd prefer that.

Seriously, your definitions are just...inaccurate. Assigning own definitions to words and then assuming everyone else uses your chosen definition will lead to...mistakes. I'm assuming this plays a large part in why you hold such peculiar and incorrect beliefs. If you honestly want to talk about this topic as if you know about it, you have to bother learning the language. Otherwise you're just wasting your own time.

Oh, and a "law" is more of a...collection of observations. Let me break it down a bit
Hypothesis: "I think if I drop this apple and bowling ball at the same time, they're going to hit the ground at the same time, even though one is heavier"
Law: "gravity can be defined as having these properties, based on these observations and experiments"
Theory: "gravity can be explained and understood as a warping of space-time"

There is a progression there, which I'm hoping is obvious. When we observe things which fall outside the theory, then we revise the theory or it can lead to a more fundamental law. Hypothesis guess, law define, theory explain and predict. This is how scientist mean it when they speak it.

 

[SG854]

Oh, so you're saying Mother Nature is a liberal? Ok, that explains it. Man-made climate change is Trump's fault because he denied it exists and that pissed off mother nature.
SMF solved the riddle everybody. Nothing more to see here.




Theories are not used to predict future events, but rather, to assume future events. They are used to "explain" why something happens through a hypothesis assumed to be true, not to explain the actual reason that something happens as there is no concrete proof to back them up.

Theories can be proven untrue, but not the other way around as they are nothing more than "scientific guesses" (or hypotheses) that can only be assumed true. A hypothesis proven true through is the scientific method is a "scientific fact", not a theory.

This whole "human caused climate change" idea is a theory. It is a guess that utilizes only the data that backs up this theory while leaving out the data that would prove it untrue. This is why there are "climate change deniers" because it has not been proven to be a scientific fact while evidence shows that it is also untrue.


theory
noun
the·o·ry | \ ˈthē-ə-rē

, ˈthir-ē\
plural theories
Definition of theory
1 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena the wave theory of light
2a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn
b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all
3a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation
b : an unproved assumption : conjecture
c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject theory of equations
4 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art music theory
5 : abstract thought : speculation
6 : the nalysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another

No osaka35 is 100% right about the usage of Theory in the Scientific field. You're using the definition from common parlance which is different from scientific usage.

The definitions you listed has both every day common usage and scientific usage. And if you look at the definitions they look like they contradict each other if you don't know this difference.

This is common knowledge on how the Scientific method works, and the process it goes through. Hypothesis becomes a theory after its been well established with data to back it up. It has to be falsifiable but that's besides the point, if its not falsifiable then its bad science to use it.




You are wrong about a hypothesis being assumed to be true because that's not what you are suppose to do as a scientist because that will cause bias. You don't assume anything, you present a hypothesis then you test it, if it survives then its solid, if it doesn't then you drop the hypothesis and move on.

A scientific guess is an educated guess its not a stupid random guess. The fact that you don't know theory and even try to argue about it's definitions when its been well established in the scientific community and common knowledge by now makes me question a lot about the stuff you say.

Just look at Theory of Gravity. This just an opinion right? An assumption? Theory of Gravity, Theory of Relativity. To see the word theory in front of these things and to argue the way you been arguing about the definition usage and not make any connection that its maybe more then what you've been talking about makes me question your critical thinking.

 

[notimp]

When someone autistic enough to cross the Atlantic ocean on a 60ft boat with solar cells and turbines tells you something is fucked up, i would probably listen.

Why, because of the PR effort? (Not a denier, just saying.)

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

While it is true that they can "predict" results, scientific predictions are nothing more than educated guesses (or assumptions). Predictions of the future can only be assumptions as we are unable to know the future until it happens.

Right. Now next stage. When is it proper to act on educated presumptions?

 

[morvoran]

Wikipedia tends to be more accurate than a dictionary.

Seriously, your definitions are just...made up. And you can't just make up your own definitions to words and then assume everyone else uses your definition.

Ok, I think I just got enough evidence right here to prove my theory correct. It was nice talking to you. You have a nice day.

You are wrong about a hypothesis being assumed to be true because that's not what you are suppose to do as a scientist because that will cause bias. You don't assume anything, you present a hypothesis then you test it, if it survives then its solid, if it doesn't then you drop the hypothesis and move on.

A scientific guess is an educated guess its not a stupid random guess. The fact that you don't know theory and even try to argue about it's definitions when its been well established in the scientific community and common knowledge by now makes me question a lot about the stuff you say.

Just look at Theory of Gravity. This just an opinion right? An assumption? Theory of Gravity, Theory of Relativity. To see the word theory in front of these things and to argue the way you been arguing about the definition usage........

I don't think you read all that I said enough to comprehend my meaning.

How about the "Law of Gravity"? What goes up, must come down. This has been proven without the shadow of doubt to be true which is what makes it law. Einstein's theory of gravity is still just a theory which hasn't been proven to be true. Sure, it may have probable evidence that can make people believe it to be true, but it has never been definitely proven to be a law meaning it may possibly be proven untrue.

You shouldn't consider theories to be absolutely and factually correct just because a few scientists with an agenda need them to be right and only show evidence that provides evidence that they might be true.


On topic, the hypothesis of these kids thinking that withholding the bringing of kids into this world will change the minds of others, is complete nonsense.

 

[MohammedQ8]

One solution is to poop outside to make more greens Lol.

 

[osaka35]

Ok, I think I just got enough evidence right here to prove my theory correct. It was nice talking to you. You have a nice day.

what in your life has lead you to belief the dictionary is so accurate as to be beyond correction or critique? And why do you still believe this to be true?

I'm sorry, I wish I could help. You'd rather accept what you think, rather than someone skilled in a field telling you that's not how it works. I could explain everything precisely and clearly, but I don't think it would help much.

 

[notimp]

You shouldn't consider theories to be absolutely and factually correct just because a few scientists with an agenda need them to be right and only show evidence that provides evidence that they might be true.


On topic, the hypothesis of these kids thinking that withholding the bringing of kids into this world will change the minds of others, is complete nonsense.

Now they arent saying that. Their message is rather 'everyone has to act within their means now' (which brings with it another set of problems), meaning - don't fly, dont take unnecessary car trips, change your diet. And politics - make laws! The dont have babies part, isnt part of their spiel - at all. Thats from fringe opinion people, unrelated to the demands of that very diverse (not uniform, everyone can join!) popular movement. That for some reason get more media attention now - but, if germany is an indicator - only once. Its not like that we are talking about that idea on how to solve it more than once - its a curiosity, that no one - but you takes seriously. (Focuses in on.)

Regardless, that it does make sense in theory - its just not something humans will ever do. Apart from a few fringe thinkers.

The closest you came to that taking place was chinas one child policy. We are not discusing that in any way.


Children as messengers. Yes, thats highly problematic. You have a point there. Currently the mainstream is trying to rectify it with 'its their world in the future' - which is correct, but it doesnt take away from the issue.

Currently the group around Greta produced their first international incidence, by announcing that they would sue five countries that made 'the rights of children, not only sacrosanct, but also legally binding - to an extent - moreso than others, and by doing that they are lumping together f.e. france and brasil by the most random of criteria. Not smart - just out of a shere wish to remain important and grow the movement.

Regardless - even if the messenger, and the means of PR are problematic - doesnt mean that the core message is wrong.

(Thats short for, the way you are dealing with issues on facebook (kill the integrity of the other person - ad hominem argument) is flawed. You cant be right because of that. )

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

On a more general note.

What you tend to do - all the time - is weigh the connection of arguments wrong. You take the most outrageous, interest baiting, borderline 'odd' ideas - postulating (say it is so) - that they are the drivers of everything.

And then say - because thats obviously not the case - what I just created - must be wrong. In principal.

But you created it with wrong presumptions about importance (of the relevance of certain parts of your theory (not in the scientific sense )) in the first place.

Got it?

Every single one of your recent threads.

And thats also what clickbait news does.

edit: And its working.

 

[Silent_Gunner]

Anyway, about this topic matter. I find it pretty ironic that schools go to great lengths to censor or remove Conservative material from their premises, but then allow kids to skip school to protest relating to their Liberal agenda. Hey, if we're going to push politics on our children before they can even think for themselves then and if I didn't have a problem with such nonsense then it would be fair to allow our children to skip school to protest women killing their own children or whatever your agenda is about.

OK, this is gonna be off the fucking topic, but I want to share my experience with this: I remember bringing a Bible to my middle school once, and doing a project in my career class to shadow one of my older brothers who's a youth pastor just for the sake of getting the assignment done because one parents' job was considered too dangerous to shadow, and I can't remember why I couldn't do the other one. Either way, no one ever gave yours truly slack for any of this that I ever noticed.

Then, at a junior college I went to, in 2014 when the movie God's Not Dead came out, I saw a poster for the movie in the testing center of the college because I had accommodations. The only time they removed the poster was when the movie wasn't in theaters. And what's even more ironic is this is in a city within an hour and a half of Chicago in Illinois. Illinois! The state who's elections totally weren't rigged thanks to Cook County that elected a man who's all about legalizing marijuana, raising taxes, making gun regulations tighter (or one of the members of his cabinet or whatever put some notice or is trying to get state legislation through or something in a statement that the aforementioned older brother sent to my mom in an e-mail once and I end up seeing this kind of shit because you'd be surprised at how much they want me to print shit out when a switch to GMail and an upgrade on the flip phone to a smartphone would do wonders) and who, in a group message that a different older brother of mine sent to all of the family via text, is looking to put in the public school curricula as a requirement LGBTQIA+/GRSM (the latter being a new phrase those on the BreadTube are promoting as a replacement to the former). I don't remember all of the details, but the implication of the notification was, "AVOID PUBLIC SCHOOLS AT ALL COSTS, AND IT'S A GOOD THING THIS WASN'T A REQUIREMENT WHEN SILENT_GUNNER WAS IN SCHOOL!"

Now, I'm not hard left or right on anything in particular that affects me personally, but I do value being able to get some form of self defense against criminals who will get guns through illegitimate means without being branded a criminal, and I think people should take responsibility for their own problems and make their own success and, to be quite honest, more people should be focusing on moving out of their parents' house as opposed to going into debt for even degrees that might be practical, and experience true freedom and independence and get an understanding of the responsibilities of adult life before going to college. As someone with higher functioning Asperger's, I think it'd be hypocritical of yours truly to be against some of the LGBTQIA+ spectra, but I'd be lying if the pronoun thing is where, in a world of "check your privilege!", you can lose your job just because you didn't refer to someone who looks like a woman as a man, or vice versa. The brother of the girl I was dating (and this wasn't why we...toned the relationship down, to sum it up) actually has the sex of a female, but has transitioned to male, and anytime I refer to him in conversation in the heat of the moment, it becomes a struggle to juggle the name (especially if their previous name is cooler IMO than their current, not to mention it being the first name you associate with someone) and pronoun to refer to them.

But being able to do whatever you want, date whoever you want (I'm straight, but even the girl I was dating raised red flags with my parents, which that situation had nothing to do with the two of us simmering the relationship down), and decide your own schedule is worth more to me personally than having to be stuck with parents who, as I spend more time around them, I'm starting to realize display behaviors that resembles that of SJWs over the past 6 years. As someone who prefers honest debate where both sides are open to changing their minds on things they might have been wrong about as opposed to, well, Jordan Peterson in the G4 interview or the interview with Robert Downey Jr. walking out and Quentin Tarantino shutting the guy's butt down (no homo? Maybe?) and other examples where there's malicious intent in one of the parties involved.

 

[notimp]

Now, I'm not hard left or right on anything in particular that affects me personally, but I do value being able to get some form of self defense against criminals who will get guns through illegitimate means without being branded a criminal, and I think people should take responsibility for their own problems and make their own success and, to be quite honest, more people should be focusing on moving out of their parents' house as opposed to going into debt for even degrees that might be practical, and experience true freedom and independence and get an understanding of the responsibilities of adult life before going to college.

I'll take this part. There is a concept in western societies called 'the police' you call them, when you have problems with criminals - they are armed, they have swat team, they have dogs (referencing a popular german satirical music video ):
)
so you don't have to go through the spiral of everyone go get armed, then people who are 'bad' get armed more and...

Its even got a name. State "monopoly on violence". Of course if you don't trust the state - different problem. You are probably in a minority - which the state tries to protect regardless - different reasoning. By different means (Constitutional law professors, NGOs, .. )
--

"People should take responsibility for their own problems and make their own success."
Yes, thats part of what we call capitalism. How do you deal with non equally set starting points though f.e.? So my daddys money bought me my first set of real estate projects, or my college diploma?

Because in markets - there are things like monopolies, and natural monopolies, and they tend to make stuff more unequal. And if you got a thing in place that works out as 'one of the best indicators of if people will be making money is - how much money they already had' - you are starting to split societies. So you have to have an 'instance' (state, ideally) - that tries to level out the starting points.

"People should focus on getting out of their parents basements."
Yes - but the economy is flawed - so millenials cant afford housing. (Thats why the housing bubble in the US wasn't dealt with for so long. Everyone got free credit.) - here is how that works (in other parts of the world). Owning apartment structures you rent out, is one of the few forms of gaining stable income, outside the realm of stockmarkets (algorithms), which is very similar to a casino in nature (they take those algorithms from the horse racing trade. Fun fact.) - so owning housing (to rent out), became more and more expensive. So 'solving the economy' (having people invest in the real world economy again - taking risk on 'innovative projects that also produce jobs') - is the actual solution. Not 'try harder.'

"People should try to make it without studying."
Oddly enough - yes. Thats a 'success' formula - thats currently at least as viable as getting a college degree. And its the one where you don't end up in debt - at the point you make your first effort to try something.

But then 'college debt' is mostly an issue the US has created - look anywhere else in the world. Loans in that spectrum is nothing, other societies rely on that heavily. Universities having become 'for profit centers' is an issue. Which brings us back to the limitations of free markets.

Also - all of that is off topic.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Also - one thing to understand about 'charity': Stable societies need that as well. So you also cover peoples basic needs. So they don't revolt. Thats a baseline that you maybe should provide. Apart from that charity is very 'spotty' and 'chance' based. (Not enough charity out there for everyone - past 'basic needs').

 

[Silent_Gunner]

Yes - but the economy is flawed - so millenials cant afford housing. (Thats why the housing bubble in the US wasn't dealt with for so long. Everyone got free credit.) - here is how that works (in other parts of the world). Owning apartment structures you rent out, is one of the few forms of gaining stable income, outside the realm of stockmarkets (algorithms), which is very similar to a casino in nature (they take those algorithms from the horse racing trade. Fun fact.). So 'solving the economy' (having people invest in the real world economy again - taking risk on 'innovative projects that also produce jobs' - is the actual solution. Not 'try harder.'

I'm just gonna respond to this and not derail the thread any further. I always read the generalization of "try harder" to translate out to: "do whatever it takes to succeed in what is ultimately a very eat-or-be-eaten world. If it means going to college to become a doctor, or selling your art online, go for it!" Obviously, those of us in developed countries are thankfully in such good supply of the basic necessities of life that we usually don't have to worry about things being like they were in the wild when we, as a species, were hunter-gatherers!

But I can see what you mean about getting a house vs. getting an apartment. At this stage of my life, getting an apartment (that's not in Illinois or some other high tax state) would honestly be enough for yours truly. I don't have any pets or a desire to get any pets at this point in time, and the amount of stuff I own could fit into one room and I'd be satisfied. Because it'd all be paid for already, I wouldn't have much need to sell anything other than things I'm not using or planning to use ever again.

And to add to your response about charity, let's add in requiring people to go to your church which manipulates people into depending upon the church for its well-being, and that's how you get shit like the Independent Fundamental Baptist church that I'm forced to put up with every Sunday even though it's little more than organized fandom around something about as real as Mario and him battling against an army consisting of what are glorified turtles, crushers with spikes, mages, goombas, etc..

 

[notimp]

Here is another part. Because we don't 'weed out' whos studying at the pre college level anymore (profit centers, also in the interest of parents who have studied in the past), we moved goalposts. So the amount of populations in society studying, went from about 15-20% to over 50% (in my country) in a few years.

So currently the indicators for 'if you are elite' (when entering job markets) are - have you studied, at least part of your time, abroad? Have you participated in voluntary summer schools (higher education level).

Just so that you know it. (Without condoning or condemning. Ok - with condemning.. )

 

[gman666]

I honestly can't take this girl seriously... Berating a bunch of ancient bureaucrats to change the world is not going to make much of a difference. The difference comes from everyday people making the decision to go greener in every aspect of life. Companies will always adjust to the needs and wants of consumers. And her whole point on profits and economic growth is totally flawed. Companies will only pursue green technologies like "co2 sucking" machines if they are PROFITABLE. Meanwhile, if you bring up nuclear energy as a zero emission alternative, these same environmental activist will turn their heads in disgust. Modernized nuclear energy could become an essential source of cleaner energy. Her writers definitely need to rethink their point on economic growth because they are not realizing the incentives of greener alternatives.

 

[notimp]

The girl is that movement. She is 'the symbol' (ever heard of Jeanne d’Arc ) she is their 'political face' so many of you mistake politics as 'being about'. Talking about political figureheads.

'Talking to a bunch of bureaucrats.' Yes. Thats the way to change things. (Slowly, conventionally, sustainably.)
Haha, lol. No - all kidding aside, thats the way to change things.

Argument goes as follows. The mouth is loud, the will is faltering. Meaning - regardless of what you are saying, that you'll do - you arent going to do it, when it comes down to reducing 'middle class growth expectations'. (I'll fly less, I'll drive less, I'l ...) So you need laws.

And to get laws in this case - well, actually...

- you need the public to be convinced, that laws for 'a new cost factor' are needed -

you don't need to convince the politicians (at least not the technocrats.. ) in this case. Girl talking to technocrats is only her 'safespace environment' (preaching to the choir). They havent quite realized that, because in the movements logic, they need 'more faster now'. But actually, you need the instruments implemented. 'More faster now' later is just part of dialing it in.

Because here is whats happening. Earth is getting warmer, (easy access to) oil is running out, China is overtacking everyone in society building.

So - lower growth expectation in middle classes - is coming. Its always just a question of how fast and how equally destributed. Now - if the US and the EU could find a middle ground, that would be swell - but if nationalists continue your trajectory - they arent.

Although - you also have trade wars, and those lower growth as well - so in the end, its all a matter of 'where you are invested in', I believe.

And, whats real - is the discussion about 'how fast'. And if you do it for the ponies.

If you are doing it with loans, for example, you make the children that ask for it - pay for it. But if then one of the other countries decides, we are not doing it with loans - that country has a competitive advantage.

Germany f.e. currently is creating loan vehicles at the size of 35 billion euro, that don't raise official state debt. That are purpose fixed for 'energy transition projects' (getting into green energy). Partly because they now can - because of that movement. Partly because they now feel they must, because of that movement. (It got really popular in germany and sweden. )