CaptainTrouble
Based Member
I'm not sure if this is just a product of me getting older or if times changed. I remember a time when two people may have had a disagreement but both people ultimately wanted to improve the situation being argued about. Like, two generals in a battle having a disagreement about the best strategy to win the war but both generals ultimately working on the same team to win the war. Was this ever the situation in this life or is my memory deceiving me because I may have thought this is how people were arguing but in reality no one ever truly war arguing in this manner? I admit, I've stopped trying to understand the "other side" but it's only because I've felt any attempt I've made to listen to the other side is met with insincerity. Is that how many on "the other side" see things when discussing with someone like myself? Thus we both want to have a real discussion but we're both closed off to the potential because we both see each other as enemies before we start the discussion and then are far too defensive to ever listen.
Some things shouldn't be so difficult to discuss. Like, they should be simple yet they aren't. For example the climate change discussion should be a simple one, imo. If we assume GHG Emissions are causing the Earth to warm which will be disastrous for us and we could all die and GHG Produced anywhere in the world have the same impact on the Earth warming such that everyone, globally, needs to reduce GHG Emissions: then logically if 1 country reduces GHG Emissions but another country doesn't, it doesn't matter that the first country reduced GHG Emissions because the world will still end. This should be a logical fact that no one should argue with in a discussion but when discussing this topic with "the other side", they'll refuse to accept this fact because they are being defensive and don't want to be baited into what they believe is going to be some disingenuous discussion angle from "the other side" (relative to them). But if they simply accepted this, they might then simply point out that by reducing GHG Emissions themselves, they could buy more time for the world as a whole and perhaps by taking the moral high ground in reducing one's GHG Emissions despite the reducing in one's Quality of Life, it would show enough humanity that the rest of the countries would follow. This then posses the strategic question. Do we gamble the fate of humanity on the idea that the other side will simply do what's right because we chose to do what's right? Also, biding time for what exactly? If the world ends in 100 years, does it ending in 150 change anything? Is the sacrifice of the present worth those 50 years? Especially, since the people benefiting most from the 50 years are going to be the children of the country who refused to reduce GHG Emissions, while the children of the country that made the sacrifice are going to have a significantly worse Quality of Life because of the sacrifice their parents made.
Biding time to potentially find a way to reduce GHG Emissions without sacrificing Quality of Life. Asking all of humanity to reduce their quality of life to save a future they have no stake in is a tough sell but if we innovate technology that can reduce GHG Emissions without sacrificing Quality of Life, we'll be much more likely to get every country to buy-into this and we won't need to rely on the humanity of any country through our own sacrifice. Thus, perhaps a good strategic choice would be to divert all resources toward the countries with the best potential for technological development while reducing GHG Emissions everywhere else (and thus the Quality of Life of these people). This seems like an easy discussion to be had by people who are all supposedly working on the same team to promote what's best for their community. And you know as I'm typing this all out, something dawned on me. Perhaps, this is exactly the decision that our leaders already made but they aren't telling us they made this decision. Essentially, the Western World decided that all the best researchers and all the resources of the world should be diverted to Israel+USA in an attempt to solve the problem while essentially all other Western countries would sacrifice themselves so that Israel+USA could potentially innovate us out of the coming apocalypse. I wonder if this was decided because as you've probably noticed. The climate change agenda seems to have completely dropped off the typical discourse, as if the elites were discussing it, decided something and then want the public to no longer focus on it. China decided they should also have a chance at innovating their way out. Russia was supposed to sacrifice themselves for Israel+USA but decided not to. Our leaders lacked the capability to properly brign Russia to heel so there's now 3 main spheres competing to innovate us out of the Climate Change apocalypse. Iran saw this and wanted to be another Russia but Israel+USA said absolutely not because it was supposed to only be Israel+USA and China while Russia is essentially a waste of resources. An interesting thought, anyhow.
My point is that these are all things we should be able to discuss without much opposition and the different strategies should be openly debated with good intentions from both sides, yet, I don't see it. Am I alone in this? Anyone I talk to in-real-life about these issues is quick to dismiss things and immediately stops discussing them genuinely. I just don't understand why it seems so hard to have these sorts of reasonable conversations anymore.
Some things shouldn't be so difficult to discuss. Like, they should be simple yet they aren't. For example the climate change discussion should be a simple one, imo. If we assume GHG Emissions are causing the Earth to warm which will be disastrous for us and we could all die and GHG Produced anywhere in the world have the same impact on the Earth warming such that everyone, globally, needs to reduce GHG Emissions: then logically if 1 country reduces GHG Emissions but another country doesn't, it doesn't matter that the first country reduced GHG Emissions because the world will still end. This should be a logical fact that no one should argue with in a discussion but when discussing this topic with "the other side", they'll refuse to accept this fact because they are being defensive and don't want to be baited into what they believe is going to be some disingenuous discussion angle from "the other side" (relative to them). But if they simply accepted this, they might then simply point out that by reducing GHG Emissions themselves, they could buy more time for the world as a whole and perhaps by taking the moral high ground in reducing one's GHG Emissions despite the reducing in one's Quality of Life, it would show enough humanity that the rest of the countries would follow. This then posses the strategic question. Do we gamble the fate of humanity on the idea that the other side will simply do what's right because we chose to do what's right? Also, biding time for what exactly? If the world ends in 100 years, does it ending in 150 change anything? Is the sacrifice of the present worth those 50 years? Especially, since the people benefiting most from the 50 years are going to be the children of the country who refused to reduce GHG Emissions, while the children of the country that made the sacrifice are going to have a significantly worse Quality of Life because of the sacrifice their parents made.
Biding time to potentially find a way to reduce GHG Emissions without sacrificing Quality of Life. Asking all of humanity to reduce their quality of life to save a future they have no stake in is a tough sell but if we innovate technology that can reduce GHG Emissions without sacrificing Quality of Life, we'll be much more likely to get every country to buy-into this and we won't need to rely on the humanity of any country through our own sacrifice. Thus, perhaps a good strategic choice would be to divert all resources toward the countries with the best potential for technological development while reducing GHG Emissions everywhere else (and thus the Quality of Life of these people). This seems like an easy discussion to be had by people who are all supposedly working on the same team to promote what's best for their community. And you know as I'm typing this all out, something dawned on me. Perhaps, this is exactly the decision that our leaders already made but they aren't telling us they made this decision. Essentially, the Western World decided that all the best researchers and all the resources of the world should be diverted to Israel+USA in an attempt to solve the problem while essentially all other Western countries would sacrifice themselves so that Israel+USA could potentially innovate us out of the coming apocalypse. I wonder if this was decided because as you've probably noticed. The climate change agenda seems to have completely dropped off the typical discourse, as if the elites were discussing it, decided something and then want the public to no longer focus on it. China decided they should also have a chance at innovating their way out. Russia was supposed to sacrifice themselves for Israel+USA but decided not to. Our leaders lacked the capability to properly brign Russia to heel so there's now 3 main spheres competing to innovate us out of the Climate Change apocalypse. Iran saw this and wanted to be another Russia but Israel+USA said absolutely not because it was supposed to only be Israel+USA and China while Russia is essentially a waste of resources. An interesting thought, anyhow.
My point is that these are all things we should be able to discuss without much opposition and the different strategies should be openly debated with good intentions from both sides, yet, I don't see it. Am I alone in this? Anyone I talk to in-real-life about these issues is quick to dismiss things and immediately stops discussing them genuinely. I just don't understand why it seems so hard to have these sorts of reasonable conversations anymore.
Upvote
7
