SolarpunkYoung people have too many emotions and can’t be trusted with decision-making, the country’s minister of climate change, Ali Shareef, last year told a public forum.
Old people have no skin in the game or a good track record with all their previous decisions that got us into this mess and can't be trusted with decision-making
Some old people are the ones who pioneered climate research, renewable energy, de-growth, and environmental activism!
Without them, no-one would understand what exactly has gone wrong or what can be done about it.
Learn to distinguish people based on their individual actions (for which they are responsible), not their involuntary characteristics (such as age).
They've got skin on the wrong game. Every discussion probably ends with "but the economy"
Well, its a tradeoff. I'm nearly forty now and for ask intends and purposes let's assume I'm very intelligent and very knowledgeable and have various degrees.
Young me would have done a lot of very stupid stuff, mainly fast change and a lot more people falling through the roster. But it would have led to change. A little like voting for extreme political parties would. That change might not be for the better, but sometimes change needs to happen for better or worse.
"Old" me would do things much more methodical like the good little engineer that i am. I also know that I'm at the peak of my work capability and my skill is very honed. That will probably not get much better maybe more experience will bring some more benefit but i wager that will diminish soon. So if about forty is the peak and people that thinking properly right about 25, and assuming the band is symmetrical, we should assume people at 60/65 are at least as dumb, just worse because they have all life's problems figured out and don't share young people's experience at all. They control most of the resources and have most of the power and don't change anything. Change does not happen gradually anymore like it should, but grinds to a standstill.
We need age limits in politics. People need to retire before we end up with a geriatric control gremlin like the US.
sometimes change needs to happen for better or worse
Change for worse is not a good thing.
Arguing otherwise is arguing against a tautology.
If the US survives Trump, I believe the country will be changing for the better longer term.
Lack of voter engagement makes progressive populism policy hard to pass. If there's a sense of "we're the most free country in the world, things may not be perfect, but things are better than they would be elsewhere" then the engagement required for change won't happen.
If things are worse than a year ago, then people might start realizing the government isn't working and be forced to be more engaged which allows more populism progressive policy to rise to the top.
Climate change is similar, it's been talked about for so long that until it gets to be nearly unhabitable many people won't get on board with its existence. But when they do they'll be fully on board.
Whether the rubber band will bounce back before its too late, idk, could snap. But if we survive.the worst change, the good change will come.
The U.S. already witnessed the damage and chaos of a Trumpster Fire presidency.
After 4 years of progress under Biden, it voted for more damage and chaos.
Americans are humans, and humans are all too often short-termist, irrational, and destructive.
Biden was the most progressive president since at least 1981.
Many people felt he wasn't progressive enough. The current primary elections are swinging far more progressive than their equivalents in 2018. It should be expected that the next democratically elected president will be more progressive than Biden. Whether they will be progressive enough and effective enough to create long lasting power like when FDRs New Deal dominated politics from 1933-1969. If you do enough damage to the economy, a generation will learn.
Similarly, it took two world wars to learn how to prevent a 3rd, in the relative short term anyways.
Memories remember differences. Trumps second presidency is much worse than his first. It will be more memorable. People are becoming more engaged.
Its entirely possible this is the end of the US as we know it, but its also entirely possible that this era will usher in a New Deal-esque progressivism that a generation remembers for life.
They probably mean short term worse for long term better, not blanket worse
If that is what they meant, then that is what they should have said.
But it isn’t what they said, and therefore presumably isn’t what they meant.
There's two kinds of people:
- those that can infer from incomplete data
- and those who rightly recognise that black swans exist?
You may enjoy unsound conclusions, but don't project that inadequacy onto the rest of us.
Not really, you neglect time as a factor. Sometimes things are stuck and only short term solutions that are objectively worse are acceptable.
Also look up tautology, the word change does not have any inherent value, therefore you are using that wrong. ;)
Having studied formal logic, I’m well aware of what a tautology is. It is a statement logically equivalent to A = A.
Relevance here: a bad outcome is a bad outcome (regardless whether it happens now or later).
Well if you studied it that still doesn't make it true. ;) a bad outcome is not the same as a net loss vs a short term loss.
Different example. Sometimes there is no good / better choice, but it's imperative that someone chooses, randomly if necessary. No choice would lead to another kind of problem.
Hence decision paralysis for example.
You are not making sense.
