It seems the right believes very strongly in hierarchy, especially hierarchies of supremacy. I think they believe these hierarchies are natural, like they are the way things are supposed to be. They believe the men at the top of the hierarchy are there because they are just naturally superior, and the people who are further down the hierarchy are there because they are naturally inferior. That’s how they justify their hierarchies of dominance and power.

It’s no coincidence that the men at the top of these hierarchies are almost exclusively all rich. Nothing proves a man’s superiority more than wealth. He’s rich because he’s great, and he’s great because he’s rich. Similarly, being poorer is proof of inferiority.

That’s why I think the US is headed toward becoming an extreme oligarchy. It’s all about maintaining hierarchies based on wealth. It’s all about making sure the right kinds of rich men are able to keep their natural place in the hierarchy, and that inferior people are kept in their place.

I don’t expect people to ignore color, I just don’t think we should look only at color. I don’t think physical characteristics are irrelevant, but you can’t define a group of people by that alone.

I criticise the continued practice of grouping people together based solely on skin color. It’s a horribly antiquated practice and we need to move beyond it.

Can we stop with this racist crap? Are we seriously still, in the year 2024, grouping millions of different people together into one group based on how much melanin they have in their skin? Regardless of things like culture, class, geography, education, religion? It’s stupid.

I don’t know exactly how bad a second Trump term would be, but I’d really rather not find out. At best it will be embarrassing and absurd, at worst it would be devastating and catastrophic for countless millions, both inside and outside the US.

On average, pay has risen faster than prices in recent years.

Fuck the average. Incomes vary far, far too much for the average to mean much of anything.

Everyone, from small business owners, to the self employed and independent contractors, to hourly wage earners who have not seen their income increase at a rate that is at least equal to the rate of inflation, every year, have had a pay cut. I can’t say how many of these people there are, but I would estimate they number in the millions.

By 2030? Not going to happen, then.

You’re right, that would be virtually impossible. I should have said that we need to decommission the fossil fuel powered machines as quickly as possible, to have the best chance of reducing global GHG emissions by >45% by 2030. But, we do need to have all fossil fuel powered machines that have GHG emissions that can’t be offset by things like carbon capture and sequestration, decommissioned by 2050, to meet the Paris climate agreement goals. That gives us a couple more decades, but even that will be extraordinarily difficult.

with urgent, decisive action, we still can avoid unmanageable outcomes

But not just any urgent, decisive action, it must be the right action. The wrong action could be insufficient at best, and actively harmful at worst.

To meet the Paris climate agreement, we must reduce global GHG emissions by 45% to 50%, from current levels, by 2030. To achieve that, we must begin decommissioning all existing fossil fuel powered machinery, from power plants, to manufacturing, transportation, and agricultural equipment, and replace them with net zero emission alternatives, as quickly as possible. I don’t think anyone really knows how best to do that, at least not on a global scale. It’s not something we’ve ever done before.

That’s true, but Germany is an outlier, and their population is still a little less than 1/4 that of the US. Plus, the US is a little more than 10 times the size of Germany in total area. I think that has an impact as well. But, it’s possible Germany does represent the upper threshold of size and population for a strong democracy, and if that’s the case the US is still well beyond that threshold.

I hope you’re not saying the solution for larger democracies is to make them not democracies.

No, absolutely not. My preference would be for larger democracies, like the US, to be broken up into many smaller democracies.

Denmark has one representative for every roughly 33,400 of its citizens. The United States, in contrast, has one representative for every approximately 626,000 of its citizens. For the United States to have a similar representation ratio to Denmark, the US Congress would need to be expanded from 535 (voting) representatives to over 10,000 representatives.

However, it is important to point out that the US is a federation, and that most US citizens also have state representation. The state representation, though, is separate from federal representation, as each state is a semi autonomous jurisdiction.

Overall, many voters seem to be most in favour of a system known as proportional representation, in which political parties are represented in governments roughly according to their vote share. Voters in democracies that use this system, such as Denmark and Ireland, tend to have relatively high approval ratings for democracy in their nation, and relatively high turnouts. But this pattern is clearest in wealthy countries.

Not only wealthier countries, but countries with smaller populations. All of the world’s top democracies have populations under 50 million, and most are under 10 million. Denmark has a population of just under six million, and Ireland has a population of a little over seven million. It seems like democracy works best when the nation is relatively wealthy, the people are relatively well educated, and the population does not exceed a certain threshold.

Why was manufacturing shipped overseas? Profit. Why are technological powers in the hands of a few? Because those few were able to become more profitable than their competitors. Why does the state not prioritize public interest? Because those with the most influence direct the state to prioritize their profit above all other considerations. It’s profit. It’s all because of god damn profit.

They support Trump because they think he can protect them and their wealth from the filthy, envious masses. The Democrats are not radical Marxists by any means, but they still threaten the capitalist class because the Democrats have been willing, at times, to raise taxes and support unions.

It’s kind of like when Lincoln was elected in 1860. Lincoln was no radical abolitionist, but Southern slave owners were so threatened by him they seceded from the union and formed the Confederacy. Like the slave owners of 1860, the ruling capitalist class have A LOT to lose, amounts of wealth and power that most of us cannot even comprehend, and they will do whatever they must to protect it. They are primarily motivated by fear. Again, they just have SO much to lose, they can’t take the risk of allowing the US to move even slightly to the left. Democracy and worker power are massive threats to them.

I don’t think anyone really hates Jo Millionaire. Jo, the master electrician that lives down the street and employs 5-10 electricians from apprentice to employee-master is a millionaire and contributes positively to their local community.

I think that’s true, but some Jo millionaires get rich enough to become part of the billionaire aristocrats. That’s the goal, isn’t it? Don’t most business owners want to grow their business and their wealth, seemingly indefinitely? Maybe that’s why the millionaires are such strong supporters of the billionaires: because they ultimately aspire to be among them. Obviously, most won’t be able to achieve that, but they aspire to it nonetheless.

Consumption of world’s wealthiest people also making it increasingly difficult to limit global heating to 1.5C

We’re not going to achieve the 1.5C target. It’s just not going to happen. Yes, it might (might!) still be physically possible to limit warming to 1.5C, but it’s not economically, politically, or socially possible. The only way we could achieve 1.5C at this point would be if there was some major economic collapse or some other major crisis. There’s no real way we can reduce GHG emissions at the rate necessary to achieve 1.5C while the global population, global economy, and average per person consumption rates continue to grow at their current pace. Some might say it is theoretically possible, but I don’t really care if it is. We’re not looking for theoretical solutions, we’re looking for actual solutions, and I think the actual solutions get us somewhere between 2.5C and 3C.

it’s nonsense to claim that Trump getting elected, is happening because voters are angry because of mysterious reasons that no one can figure out…

That’s not exactly what I am saying. It’s more that there isn’t yet a consensus of what the root problem is. There are a lot of theories, sure, like yours. That’s one theory, but, confident though you may be that that is the exact problem, not everyone agrees, or at least they think there’s more to it than that.

I think there might be some truth to your theory, but I don’t agree with the idea that these people are essentially doing fine, but they’ve been brainwashed into thinking they’re not doing fine. That it’s all just a result of some kind of mass hypnosis. That kind of erases the very real problems that many of these people do face.

Trump happened because large segments of US voters feel disenfranchised and resentful, as they feel they have been left behind and that their lives have been made worse by the policies of the political establishment and experts. If said political establishment and the experts want to end the Trump movement and prevent something similar from happening again, they’re going to have to address the concerns of dissatisfied voters. I don’t really think either party knows how to go about doing that.

I think part of the reason for that is there’s still significant discussion about what has caused so many Americans to become so unhappy with leadership, and you can’t really come up with a solution until you correctly identify the problem. I still don’t think the experts have a very good grasp on why Americans are upset. Until they figure it out, they can’t come up with a solution, and until they come up with a solution, movements like Trumpism are still very possible.

I want out of this “Everyone is beautiful and no one is horny” Twilight Zone multiverse that all our modern movies seem to take place in.

I’m not saying no character should ever be allowed to be horny, or sexual in any way. My point isn’t that we should pretend that human sexuality doesn’t exist, I just don’t think it’s always necessary to see it simulated (usually poorly) on screen.

Elon Musk is a dipshit, though.