The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[sendler]

Sorry but mass mechanization has already occured. Energy already does 90% of all work and process in the world. Energy ER/EI has already started to inexorably slip and will continue down. Wind and solar will not find it's replacement for even half of the fossil carbon bonanza we are now privy to. Which leaves less societal surplus for each human even while the population is growing even with a hoped for 2:1 efficiency improvement. A new category of cheap electronic gadgets can make us happier with less. But the fact is that the bottom 50% of OECD humans are working harder and longer and taking home less. Which forces dual incomes as necessity where one worker and a home maker used to be able to raise a family with equity building from world economic growth increasing the value of the home which they could afford to own. Our fossil energy seed corn for a partial energy transformation is being devoured by frivolous waste.
.
The concept of zero marginal cost from limitless free energy supplying an endless supply of robots building robots without regard to dwindling nonrenewable resources is absurd to me.
.
We are right now already living very close to the peak of the Star Trek future where we will be very fortunate to salvage a focused and more efficient world internet and electronic industry to at least hang on to that as we take pragmatic aim at a plan to drop back to where we can once again learn to share and most people will grow most of their own food, fuel wood, and fiber.

[RedDevil]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

That one image is a lie, so it proves the source (CleanTechnica) is a worthless pile of garbage that nobody with an ounce of independent thought should spend a second reading.

For instance, Koch Industries backs approximately 15% Democrats throughout time, and during the time in which that graph supposedly depicts, contributed to Democrats though it isn't represented. Koch even donated to Bernie Sanders during 2016!

Better to go to the source than to give credit to a site known to be factually incorrect in nearly everything they publish.

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/rec...t=A&cycle=2000
...

I'd better check that link...
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/rec...t=A&cycle=2000
You're right!
My apologies for bringing up such garbage.

But wait a minute. It says 2000.
What if we fill in 2016...?
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/rec...t=A&cycle=2016

Aha! The Koch Brothers gave up on almost all Democrats.
CleanTechnica was right after all...
I don't know why you hate them that badly? At least this matches the data for the correct years.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by sendler

The concept of zero marginal cost from limitless free energy supplying an endless supply of robots building robots without regard to dwindling nonrenewable resources is absurd to me.
.
We are right now already living very close to the peak of the Star Trek future where we will be very fortunate to salvage a focused and more efficient world internet and electronic industry to at least hang on to that as we take pragmatic aim at a plan to drop back to where we can once again learn to share and most people will grow most of their own food, fuel wood, and fiber.

You're not speaking to my comments as I never said we would have zero marginal cost, I said things would generally trend towards zero marginal cost, which is just to say that things will tend to get cheaper.

I brought up resource depletion, which is exactly the problem with automation. We're on the same page there.

As far as I can tell, our only real disagreement is that I'm more optimistic about quality of life as we move away from fossil fuels. I don't expect we'll need to go back to producing our own food, as I expect some form of mass food production to still be viable.

[RedDevil]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

BTW- The American Federation of Teachers spends more on lobbying than Koch, and backs about 0.5% Republicans, which suggests they are even less independent minded. The frightening thing about this is that teachers interact and shape our children, so they tend to be exposed to groupthink echochambers of shallow thinking.

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/top...083&cycle=2018



The cost of resources is tied to the labor to extract. If that's automated then the cost plummets. There are certain constraints such as land suitable for farming which will set prices at some bottom level, but even energy can eventually be automated with robots building solar/wind/nuclear.... and maintaining it all.

Statistics lie anyhow concerning wealth distribution. Ask the bottom 25% if they would rather be the bottom 25% now, or be the bottom 25% in 2000. They can go back to not owning cell phones, standard definition 27" TVs, and terrible sitcoms.

The real problem is that an increasingly complex world increasingly dispossess a larger percentage of the bottom portion of society. That's how we end up with increasingly popular yet tragically simplistic ideas that if the problem is wealth inequality, than socialism is the best solution. It's a concept that only sounds good if ones understanding of how things work extends out only 1 move into the future.

Anybody can be a teacher. AFAIK, nobody is banned from the profession for supporting one of the 2 political parties of yours. So IDK why they'd only influence one side, unless one side is strictly party line on education matters while the other is more open. Just guessing.
(the same may apply to energy policies - if the Democrats vote strictly on party lines it makes no sense to pay anyone of them)

As teachers go they should be divided over both parties, how can they not be? They are a subset of the American People.

Which the oil industry is not. That is money exerting power.
Don't blame teachers for wealth inequality. Blame those that want you to buy an oversized pickup truck on loans.

[redpoint5]

I don't blame anyone for inequality, just as I don't blame Michael Jordan for being unequally superior at basketball than me. I've never been one to envy much, and have found the most contentment in situations where I had the least (childhood, prison, young adult).

To answer your question about how teachers could be unequally represented in party affiliation is because party affiliation is associated with temperamental traits. Certain temperamental traits are more likely to choose certain professions.

You've implied that certain political contributors are detestable due to their political contributions, and I don't necessarily disagree, but the flip side is also true.

Teachers unions are among the highest political contributors and most likely to strictly stick to 1 political party. Unions are paid by the people they represent, in this case the teachers. If teachers were evenly divided in their political affiliation, they would not allow the union that supposedly represents them to spend 99.9% of their vast political contributions to a single political party.

https://www.opensecrets.org/industri....php?ind=L1300

Teachers unions have steadily amped up their political involvement: From 2004 to 2016, their donations grew from $4.3 million to more than $32 million -- an all-time high. Even more than most labor unions, they have little use for Republicans, giving Democrats at least 94 percent of the funds they contributed to candidates and parties since as far back as 1990, where our data begins.

Two organizations account for practically all of the contributions made by teachers unions: The National Education Association (about $20 million in 2016) and the American Federation of Teachers (almost $12 million). Both groups -- which compete for members, but also collaborate with each other through the NEA-AFT Partnership -- are consistently among the organizations that contribute the most money to candidates and political groups.

I expect youth to have liberal leanings because youth is where creativity mostly is. Their lack of experience leaves the mind to be more adaptable to new ideas, and not trust the established way of things. Most new ideas are bad ideas; after all there is an unlimited number of possible ideas, but good ones are rare. Youth are more accepting of risk in this regard.

Conservatives tend to be older as they have established effective ways to do things and are less creative, and are more risk averse.

In that respect, I see that youth and liberal teachers tend to be more compatible.

[RedDevil]

I don't know. Many teachers hold that profession until they retire. Over here we have a whole generation of old teachers reaching retirement age and shortages are huge. So the average teacher is not especially young...

Rather than age related, I think the bias is because one party is more likely to listen to them than the other. I can guess which one is more likely to increase spending on education, and which one is more inclined to melt polar bears or such.

[redpoint5]

Well, your political lens appears to have a clear bent. Neither party has evil intent, and both are necessary as we can't live in chaos, and we don't improve if we're not trying new ideas.

[RedDevil]

Ha. I don't care much for politics, I just observe what they are trying to achieve. That does not put me in one camp.

In my home country many would brand me as a member of the right side of the political spectrum. But in the US both parties are on the right side, one more so than the other; so IDK. I'd probably side with the Democrats more than the Republicans. I was glad Trump won though, but looking back I'm not sure about it anymore. Would Hillary have done a better job then? So glad it's not my problem.

[Hersbird]

You're not here so we can give you a pass but anyone with even a basic ability of observation can see the education system is overwhelming run by and populated with those on the left. It's not just the union, the union is elected by the workers. Even the school administrations which in a normal world would be the pushback on the union, are filled mostly with those same left ideas. Why do they give so much to one side when that said already will give them whatever they want. It's called money laundering. I'm not against unions by any means, but I am against public sector unions, they are basically negotiating against the people. That isn't right. If this was right even the military should be allowed to unionize. Don't want to allow our 500% pay raise? Well put a new spin on "going on strike."

[freebeard]

Well, your political lens appears to have a clear bent. Neither party has evil intent, and both are necessary as we can't live in chaos, and we don't improve if we're not trying new ideas.

But in the US both parties are on the right side, one more so than the other; so IDK.

I guess I didn't hit send earlier. It's nothing to do with money or unions.

The communists losers driven out of Germany in the 1930s landed in Santa Monica (via New York) and looked around at the happy surfers and sunshine and retreated into their dark thoughts. They infiltrated and subverted the educational system (and Hollywood) from the 1970s on.

Teacher retiring today saw the change.

Today's Antifa flag is the same as Antifascistische Aktion, the OG Black Block from the 1930s.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...n_logo.svg.png

Now they're moving on to taking over Congress.

I find nothing about political parties in the Constitution, but give their dominance, it's worrisome when one end collapses in disarray. And they keep phasing in and out. The Left used to be in favor of free speech and not-racism, but now they are censorious and bigoted.