Al Gore: 'The rich have subverted all reason'(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
Al Gore: 'The rich have subverted all reason'
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/30/al-gore-interview-our-crumbling-planet-the-rich-have-subverted-all-reason-al-gore
93 comments
>BTW this article reminded me of a great show that Last Week Tonight did...
Last Week Tonight is one of the most blatant examples of media-driven manipulation on the air today.
Last Week Tonight is one of the most blatant examples of media-driven manipulation on the air today.
This is so true.
The right has always had its own junk - things like Fox News, various 'Think Tanks' and academic institutions who are quite blatant in their bias.
But in the last few years, at least, I've been amazed at just how obvious it is when the left pushes a narrative, regardless of whether it's a hit piece against Trump or any of a dozen other themes: immigration is needed, climate change will destroy us all, women are bullied in tech, etc.
The same exact story, from out of nowhere, is suddenly blaring at me via CNN at the airport and McDonalds, headlining a dozen different magazines at the grocery store checkout, editorials in all the major papers, jokes from three different late night comedians, surprisingly highly-voted articles on Reddit, hashtags on Twitter, a placement in a popular sitcom or movie...
The right has always had its own junk - things like Fox News, various 'Think Tanks' and academic institutions who are quite blatant in their bias.
But in the last few years, at least, I've been amazed at just how obvious it is when the left pushes a narrative, regardless of whether it's a hit piece against Trump or any of a dozen other themes: immigration is needed, climate change will destroy us all, women are bullied in tech, etc.
The same exact story, from out of nowhere, is suddenly blaring at me via CNN at the airport and McDonalds, headlining a dozen different magazines at the grocery store checkout, editorials in all the major papers, jokes from three different late night comedians, surprisingly highly-voted articles on Reddit, hashtags on Twitter, a placement in a popular sitcom or movie...
Lawrence Lessig's Republic, Lost directly addresses this.
His 2011 Google Tech Talk provides a condensed version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ik1AK56FtVc
His 2011 Google Tech Talk provides a condensed version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ik1AK56FtVc
> questionable data that we need to figure out how to battle
The reality of the situation seems obvious to me, even if the edges are not clearly defined. I don't think it's very difficult to work out what is going on (with climate change etc.)
To me this is not about people getting access to good data, or being otherwise properly educated. It's about people identifying with "their group", and attacking the "others". And such battle lines are fought around various issues and language, and labels. But it's not actually about those issues or language or labels. It's about self and other. My people, and those other people. So this is what needs to be healed, this separative egoness.
The reality of the situation seems obvious to me, even if the edges are not clearly defined. I don't think it's very difficult to work out what is going on (with climate change etc.)
To me this is not about people getting access to good data, or being otherwise properly educated. It's about people identifying with "their group", and attacking the "others". And such battle lines are fought around various issues and language, and labels. But it's not actually about those issues or language or labels. It's about self and other. My people, and those other people. So this is what needs to be healed, this separative egoness.
This resonate strongly with me but there doesn't seem to be any political platform that has been promoting this theory in the last 20 years. The left focus has been on promoting the distinction and multitude of groups and the strengthening of self-identity that members has towards such groupings. The right is in return focusing the distinction between self and other, making the combination of left and right a special volatile mix in current political environment.
Sadly the group that has changed in this formula is the left. They used to (ie, 30-40 years ago) spend a lot of focusing on eliminating and underplay difference between groups. Today I often see the modern left making fun of those times as naive experiment.
Sadly the group that has changed in this formula is the left. They used to (ie, 30-40 years ago) spend a lot of focusing on eliminating and underplay difference between groups. Today I often see the modern left making fun of those times as naive experiment.
Can you give some examples of when and how the Left is doing this?
From what I can tell, in general the left of the US is constantly making an attempt to be all inclusive. I'd agree that there hasn't been enough work to help people see that they have common cause with people who look different and live in different places. That's really whats needed, but it's never been clear to me how to help someone who is severely bigoted to understand that their views are born of ignorance.
From what I can tell, the Right uses positions to drive wedges between people, such that someone can literally hate something which is clearly benefiting them personally because they have turned the issue into an Us vs Them argument. The only thing I see the Left consistently use as a wedge issue is class and money... Whereas the Right uses every possible thing they can come up with to convince people that follow them that they should all be afraid of what the Left is going to "take" from them.
From what I can tell, in general the left of the US is constantly making an attempt to be all inclusive. I'd agree that there hasn't been enough work to help people see that they have common cause with people who look different and live in different places. That's really whats needed, but it's never been clear to me how to help someone who is severely bigoted to understand that their views are born of ignorance.
From what I can tell, the Right uses positions to drive wedges between people, such that someone can literally hate something which is clearly benefiting them personally because they have turned the issue into an Us vs Them argument. The only thing I see the Left consistently use as a wedge issue is class and money... Whereas the Right uses every possible thing they can come up with to convince people that follow them that they should all be afraid of what the Left is going to "take" from them.
To take a direct example, in the during 70s-90s some left-leaning families tried to avoid gender specific clothes and toys in order to avoid that the children would fall into typical gender roles. Today the left want gender specific toys, but that toys designed for girls and toys designed for boys should both include professions that are currently popular so that both boys and girls have role models in those. The goal of the first is the remove the group thinking (a very explicit goal, if one read the politics of that time), while the modern left has as a goal that the groups stay distinct and strongly different but that both are included in society in a equal way.
An other example would be collage kids. 30-40 years ago we had the political debate around private gender segregated college vs communal gender mixed college. The argument was that by mixing genders people will be more inclusive and less rigid in their group thinking. In modern left politics we instead see a lot of talk about women only school as an effective way to protect women and get more women into professions that is dominated by men. The idea is that they society should include them by giving them an exclusive safe space.
On the topic of religions I can also see a similar change in theme. Old left were more atheism leaning (through possible less so in the US) and regarded what people did in private as private and not part of group identity. Modern left is more focused in giving each religion equal space and promoting the different groups that self-identify as belong to one. It consider it especially important that society give each group the unique consideration that they need/demand.
The general theme here is that the old left either explicit or indirectly downplayed self-identified groups (gender, religions, and sexual orientation) by simply welcoming in everyone to join in the greater common goal (mostly against money/power in some version or other), and the group that did get promoted was the left movement itself. The right during this time acted in direct opposite by highlighted the multiple "others" in order to strengthen the self-group. Both the old and modern left movement focus on inclusion, but its the method used here and the side effects of those that is in stark contrast between new and old.
An other example would be collage kids. 30-40 years ago we had the political debate around private gender segregated college vs communal gender mixed college. The argument was that by mixing genders people will be more inclusive and less rigid in their group thinking. In modern left politics we instead see a lot of talk about women only school as an effective way to protect women and get more women into professions that is dominated by men. The idea is that they society should include them by giving them an exclusive safe space.
On the topic of religions I can also see a similar change in theme. Old left were more atheism leaning (through possible less so in the US) and regarded what people did in private as private and not part of group identity. Modern left is more focused in giving each religion equal space and promoting the different groups that self-identify as belong to one. It consider it especially important that society give each group the unique consideration that they need/demand.
The general theme here is that the old left either explicit or indirectly downplayed self-identified groups (gender, religions, and sexual orientation) by simply welcoming in everyone to join in the greater common goal (mostly against money/power in some version or other), and the group that did get promoted was the left movement itself. The right during this time acted in direct opposite by highlighted the multiple "others" in order to strengthen the self-group. Both the old and modern left movement focus on inclusion, but its the method used here and the side effects of those that is in stark contrast between new and old.
The "old"/"real" (I'll explain) left is about erasing identities. The only identity any (extreme) leftist philosophy wants you to have is the identity of the state you belong to.
If you think about how the economic system works, it will very quickly become obvious why this is the only way a leftist state can ever work : idea is that 2 things motivate people, one is richness and one is ideology. Since richness is taken away (that's the very goal of leftism), ideology is the one remaining. Given that, you cannot give freedom of ideology and expect something like communism to work. Even limited communism.
Assuming the goal of the left is still communism (even the ones of the "eventually" persuasion), I would still agree this is true, and therefore should have the "real" moniker.
In my opinion the "new left" has as a defining characteristic "globalism at any cost". The global free movement of people, and (because it's a necessity of movement of people) capital, and ideology is the central principle. This has somehow become what traditionally leftist parties stand for these days.
This is an extreme subversion of leftist thought, because, firstly, it is an extreme laissez-faire market idea, and should thus be classified as extreme-right. Secondly, it's self-destructive, as it allows the owners of means of production to use that movement of people, and especially to abuse it. Why ? To create ridiculous concentrations of wealth that are the very opposite of what leftism stands for. Needless to say, this abuse of people movement is happening on a large scale as a result. "Strongholds" of leftist thoughts (like the Bay Area and especially San Francisco) have become the main examples of what's wrong with capitalism, as gets frequently complained about on this very forum. And yet, most everyone from there professes to hold socialist ideals.
Even on a larger scale this is true. The republican party is currently about as left/right as the democrats (which is, I think, a large part of the reason for Trump's win), and democrats are moving to the right, republicans to the left. It's baffling to see, but every year requires more of a squint not to see it.
If you think about how the economic system works, it will very quickly become obvious why this is the only way a leftist state can ever work : idea is that 2 things motivate people, one is richness and one is ideology. Since richness is taken away (that's the very goal of leftism), ideology is the one remaining. Given that, you cannot give freedom of ideology and expect something like communism to work. Even limited communism.
Assuming the goal of the left is still communism (even the ones of the "eventually" persuasion), I would still agree this is true, and therefore should have the "real" moniker.
In my opinion the "new left" has as a defining characteristic "globalism at any cost". The global free movement of people, and (because it's a necessity of movement of people) capital, and ideology is the central principle. This has somehow become what traditionally leftist parties stand for these days.
This is an extreme subversion of leftist thought, because, firstly, it is an extreme laissez-faire market idea, and should thus be classified as extreme-right. Secondly, it's self-destructive, as it allows the owners of means of production to use that movement of people, and especially to abuse it. Why ? To create ridiculous concentrations of wealth that are the very opposite of what leftism stands for. Needless to say, this abuse of people movement is happening on a large scale as a result. "Strongholds" of leftist thoughts (like the Bay Area and especially San Francisco) have become the main examples of what's wrong with capitalism, as gets frequently complained about on this very forum. And yet, most everyone from there professes to hold socialist ideals.
Even on a larger scale this is true. The republican party is currently about as left/right as the democrats (which is, I think, a large part of the reason for Trump's win), and democrats are moving to the right, republicans to the left. It's baffling to see, but every year requires more of a squint not to see it.
I think the left is not inclusive enough. Though perhaps a better way to describe it is that the left is increasingly unwelcoming,
remarkably to the people whose votes we need. As an extremely liberal person who also happens to be from the south, I am horrified by my Facebook feed where everyday posts by liberal friends proudly mock conservatives as being stupid or bigoted. Being from the south, I know many conservative people with great hearts. These are the people we are trying to convince to join our side, and we are shitting all over them.
In these articles, one can sense a true disdain for many conservative points of view on topics like abortion, the role of religion in our society, and gun control. It is rare to find articles that I would feel comfortable sharing with conservative friends or family, as their tone is so contemptuous of conservatives. If it were not for the acerbic tone, many of these articles might become powerful tools of persuasion. But I guess it is just too much fun to taunt the "basket of deplorables."
To quote an article that nicely summarizes a Lincoln speech:
> When Abraham Lincoln was 33 years old, he gave a speech inside a Presbyterian church to a temperance society. His message: The assembled ought to be nicer to drinkers and sellers of alcohol, rather than shunning them, or denouncing them as moral pestilences. Indeed, they ought to use “kindly persuasion,” even if a man’s drunkenness had caused misery to his wife, or left his children hungry and naked with want.
> For people are never less likely to change, to convert to new ways of thinking or acting, than when it means joining the ranks of their denouncers.
> To expect otherwise, “to have expected them not to meet denunciation with denunciation ... and anathema with anathema, was to expect a reversal of human nature,” Lincoln explained.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/05/why-can...
In these articles, one can sense a true disdain for many conservative points of view on topics like abortion, the role of religion in our society, and gun control. It is rare to find articles that I would feel comfortable sharing with conservative friends or family, as their tone is so contemptuous of conservatives. If it were not for the acerbic tone, many of these articles might become powerful tools of persuasion. But I guess it is just too much fun to taunt the "basket of deplorables."
To quote an article that nicely summarizes a Lincoln speech:
> When Abraham Lincoln was 33 years old, he gave a speech inside a Presbyterian church to a temperance society. His message: The assembled ought to be nicer to drinkers and sellers of alcohol, rather than shunning them, or denouncing them as moral pestilences. Indeed, they ought to use “kindly persuasion,” even if a man’s drunkenness had caused misery to his wife, or left his children hungry and naked with want.
> For people are never less likely to change, to convert to new ways of thinking or acting, than when it means joining the ranks of their denouncers.
> To expect otherwise, “to have expected them not to meet denunciation with denunciation ... and anathema with anathema, was to expect a reversal of human nature,” Lincoln explained.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/05/why-can...
It's hard when some conservatives ARE stupid... I was sad at the Death of Chester Bennington...and one of my old friends...and my wife's best friends' husband -- said to me, "You know the Clinton's Killed him, right?"... and I'm like...okay give me concrete evidence, and he's can only give clear conspiracy theory sites, and I'm like... look here's what snopes says..and he's like...telling me Snopes is FAKE News and crap... as opposed to his sources which are all true...
I literally bloodied my head face-desking after the exchange...
I literally bloodied my head face-desking after the exchange...
> one can sense a true disdain for many conservative points of view on topics like abortion, the role of religion in our society, and gun control.
Aren't these in fact lightning rod issues between conservatives and liberals in general?
The right for women to choose what to do with their bodies is generally a liberal sentiment. The right to be free of religions in every day life, again is a liberal (and constitutional) view. Gun control, is again a liberal desire (though probably not as stalwart as the others).
Why should liberals relax their views on these things? Liberals have relaxed on are some issues: economics, corporate policy, healthcare, etc.
Aren't these in fact lightning rod issues between conservatives and liberals in general?
The right for women to choose what to do with their bodies is generally a liberal sentiment. The right to be free of religions in every day life, again is a liberal (and constitutional) view. Gun control, is again a liberal desire (though probably not as stalwart as the others).
Why should liberals relax their views on these things? Liberals have relaxed on are some issues: economics, corporate policy, healthcare, etc.
And in the mean time, other parties will step into our USA internecine war with their own agendas and prey off our pride and ignorance, e.g.: https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/china-ra....
[Written from an obvious US viewpoint.]
[Written from an obvious US viewpoint.]
So much agree. The content of issues is largely irrelevant to most people. If the republican leadership were environmentalists, so would their constituents be.
What people really want is for their group to beat other groups. It's always been that way, and always will.
This factionalization can occasionally be overcome by great leaders or external enemies. But now, with this 'party over country' attitude that we have, it'll can't be. Shame on us.
What people really want is for their group to beat other groups. It's always been that way, and always will.
This factionalization can occasionally be overcome by great leaders or external enemies. But now, with this 'party over country' attitude that we have, it'll can't be. Shame on us.
I agree completely. People need to be able to come together, with disagreeing being the starting point, and not attack each other's groups and views. That would allow for necessary communication to come to agreement, or at least civilly agree to disagree on that topic. Then the door is at least still open to discuss other topics.
I agree the central issue is the self/other tribalism that's gone out of control. But you shouldn't dismiss the lack of access to good data. It's the manipulation and bombardment of nonesense that is entrenching the divide to what I perceive as unprecedented levels.
So saying (or possibly just feeling) we are all the same makes them try to be different by fighting with each other?
Maybe that came to be cause you cant discern anymore your pals on here as on the street where you see who he is by his looks.
Maybe that came to be cause you cant discern anymore your pals on here as on the street where you see who he is by his looks.
Dividing the West and the United States in particular has been planned for a long time. Race, gender, income, politics all of it is being used to keep the plebes at each others throats.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3qkf3bajd4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3qkf3bajd4
> We need some way to get out of the disinformation bubble
There is even something that came a long time before IT and the resulting disinformation bubble:
Very unhealthy and materialistic values, deeply embedded in our current culture. I.e., we are constantly being told that being rich, being popular and to dominate others is a very desirable target.
There is even something that came a long time before IT and the resulting disinformation bubble:
Very unhealthy and materialistic values, deeply embedded in our current culture. I.e., we are constantly being told that being rich, being popular and to dominate others is a very desirable target.
Is it really because we're told that? I mean, in very practical terms, being rich and popular (within reason) will give you better life in almost every way. Mainly because it allows you to choose what kind of life you want to lead. Also in case of any life accidents, having contacts and money, you can make lots of them easier to deal with. Dominating others is the only one I'm not sure of.
On a global scale, I think that's a bad situation. On a family scale, being rich is close to the healthiest thing you can do.
On a global scale, I think that's a bad situation. On a family scale, being rich is close to the healthiest thing you can do.
> "On a family scale, being rich is close to the healthiest thing you can do."
I would say being self-reliant is the 'healthiest' thing you can do.
Being rich is a type of self-reliance, but it comes with its downsides. The biggest one is probably isolation. A disconnection from the world around you. Perhaps the world around you is 'unhealthy' so it makes some sense to be disconnected from it, but generally it's a downside.
I would say being self-reliant is the 'healthiest' thing you can do.
Being rich is a type of self-reliance, but it comes with its downsides. The biggest one is probably isolation. A disconnection from the world around you. Perhaps the world around you is 'unhealthy' so it makes some sense to be disconnected from it, but generally it's a downside.
That's a deeper / secondary result. I was thinking in terms of basic needs. Self-reliance is good, but if you live in a good area, close to a good hospital where you don't wait and don't need to worry that calling an ambulance is a debt risk, your survival chance is much higher. You can't realistically provide this yourself / in small community.
Even basic human events like a childbirth: if everything goes well - great, if you get PPH - you've potentially got minutes before bleeding out.
Even basic human events like a childbirth: if everything goes well - great, if you get PPH - you've potentially got minutes before bleeding out.
That's why you should support public health services. That way everyone in your community can benefit from the services that you can't provide for yourself. Self-reliance is an ideal rather than the be-all end-all.
Looking at human history I do not this this is new.
Here's a couple good articles by Scott Adams on things that would convince him on climate change. He mainly focuses on his experience with being able to manipulate models to show whatever you want them to show and what proportion is man-made vs natural.
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/158159613566/how-to-convince-sk...
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/158778029326/how-to-change-my-b...
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/158159613566/how-to-convince-sk...
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/158778029326/how-to-change-my-b...
Wow, so here is my otherwise -3 rated first post, it was posted to answer just what you & Scott wrote:
Just in case a preemptive post for all shills and otherwise identity-impaired deniers. Please watch this presentation from Sheffield University: https ://youtu.be/7IbyiOoVgnQ Thank you
Just in case a preemptive post for all shills and otherwise identity-impaired deniers. Please watch this presentation from Sheffield University: https ://youtu.be/7IbyiOoVgnQ Thank you
I'll watch the video, but whilst I do I'll put a question to you... Do you think the natural habitat of other animals on our planet should be protected?
That's the bigger question for me. I don't care if the planet is getting hotter or colder if biodiversity is being protected. Perhaps we should agree to stop driving species to extinction and let any decisions on climate be driven by that goal. Would you say that's a reasonable approach?
EDIT: Have watched the video. I can see you don't need convincing. Thanks for sharing it.
Here's the fixed video link, I'd recommend it to anyone who hasn't seen it:
https://youtu.be/7IbyiOoVgnQ
That's the bigger question for me. I don't care if the planet is getting hotter or colder if biodiversity is being protected. Perhaps we should agree to stop driving species to extinction and let any decisions on climate be driven by that goal. Would you say that's a reasonable approach?
EDIT: Have watched the video. I can see you don't need convincing. Thanks for sharing it.
Here's the fixed video link, I'd recommend it to anyone who hasn't seen it:
https://youtu.be/7IbyiOoVgnQ
It's about to get a lot worse. Realistic chat bots are only now coming into play. Soon there will be 10 bots per legitimate user in every online community that discusses politics.
A prediction of mine for the past year: in 2020 mass social media dies.
2016 was the first Internet election and showed the power of "fake news" (disinformation flooding) and data driven micro-targeting in an election. Trump won partly because he ran an Internet election while Clinton ran a TV era election. (Obama had a good net game too, but 2008 and 2012 were still dominated by old media.)
The Democrats will close this gap, as will a trillion varied think tanks and pressure groups not to mention a dozen foreign governments. Combine this with the advent of AI chat bots and you have a recipe for social media apocalypse.
My specific prediction is that in 2020 mass social media will be flooded and basically DOS'd to death by automated propaganda bots and algorithmically generated fake news. Sites like Reddit will be nothing but donkeybots arguing with elephantbots. Less than half of online news will be even remotely true, especially on social media. Most will be algorithmically targeted and written propaganda.
It will be like the advent of mechanized warfare in WWI, but with bullshit. Mechanized bullshit warfare. Feel free to visualize.
Social platforms will implement censorship and other measures to attempt to fight this DOS attack but these will ruin them for humans and drive people away.
Basically mass social will die the way Usenet died, but with AI and driven by big big money propaganda efforts.
Internet discussion will retreat to private enclaves. We may see a second BBS era.
2016 was the first Internet election and showed the power of "fake news" (disinformation flooding) and data driven micro-targeting in an election. Trump won partly because he ran an Internet election while Clinton ran a TV era election. (Obama had a good net game too, but 2008 and 2012 were still dominated by old media.)
The Democrats will close this gap, as will a trillion varied think tanks and pressure groups not to mention a dozen foreign governments. Combine this with the advent of AI chat bots and you have a recipe for social media apocalypse.
My specific prediction is that in 2020 mass social media will be flooded and basically DOS'd to death by automated propaganda bots and algorithmically generated fake news. Sites like Reddit will be nothing but donkeybots arguing with elephantbots. Less than half of online news will be even remotely true, especially on social media. Most will be algorithmically targeted and written propaganda.
It will be like the advent of mechanized warfare in WWI, but with bullshit. Mechanized bullshit warfare. Feel free to visualize.
Social platforms will implement censorship and other measures to attempt to fight this DOS attack but these will ruin them for humans and drive people away.
Basically mass social will die the way Usenet died, but with AI and driven by big big money propaganda efforts.
Internet discussion will retreat to private enclaves. We may see a second BBS era.
I can't help but think the obvious solution here is the correct one: start talking politics with people IN PERSON.
The signal to noise ratio around my kitchen table is a lot higher than on reddit (or even HN), and there are a lot fewer trolls.
We used to say "Never trust anyone you can't punch in the face."
The signal to noise ratio around my kitchen table is a lot higher than on reddit (or even HN), and there are a lot fewer trolls.
We used to say "Never trust anyone you can't punch in the face."
Manipulation is on both sides of the spectrum, so I wouldn't unconditionally trust Al Gore or The Guardian either. (Not necessarily denying the topic).
The media is simply by definition vulnerable to manipulation. At some point you have to trust someone who tells you the truth. There are many ways to bend the truth.
What we need is strong ethics and a strong backing of them.
The media is simply by definition vulnerable to manipulation. At some point you have to trust someone who tells you the truth. There are many ways to bend the truth.
What we need is strong ethics and a strong backing of them.
You're argument is basically, we can't trust either, so we should just throw our hands up and ignore them all?
The entire point of the scientific method is to come to some common understanding of fact. What we need to demand is that articles are backed by properly run studies so that we can come to a common understanding based on good methods.
Yes, Al Gore believes that the current warming trend and climate change is man-made, so he will point to those things that support his theories and possibly downplay things that do not. This does not make him wrong.
The entire point of the scientific method is to come to some common understanding of fact. What we need to demand is that articles are backed by properly run studies so that we can come to a common understanding based on good methods.
Yes, Al Gore believes that the current warming trend and climate change is man-made, so he will point to those things that support his theories and possibly downplay things that do not. This does not make him wrong.
> You're argument is basically, we can't trust either, so we should just throw our hands up and ignore them all?
No. I didn't even suggest some immediate action for the current situation. There is probably no way to fix it.
The scientific method cannot solve everything. Maybe it can prove global warming. But the human factor can still corrupt any facts established. That is why I said we need strong ethics. We need to accept the truth, even if it is inconvenient.
No. I didn't even suggest some immediate action for the current situation. There is probably no way to fix it.
The scientific method cannot solve everything. Maybe it can prove global warming. But the human factor can still corrupt any facts established. That is why I said we need strong ethics. We need to accept the truth, even if it is inconvenient.
I don't buy the evil secret conspiracy theory. I mean there are evil secret conspiracies, but they're much more narrow, factional and ineffective than advertised.
Let's take Fake News. This is entirely a grass roots phenomenon. Sure there are individuals and groups behind a lot of it, but those individuals and groups are not heavily funded black ops teams of a billionaire conspiracy. They're sad white supremacist Reddit trolls. The fact that Trump blundered on to a wave of it and rode it to power is an accident, not the culmination of a choreographed master plan.
Let's take Fake News. This is entirely a grass roots phenomenon. Sure there are individuals and groups behind a lot of it, but those individuals and groups are not heavily funded black ops teams of a billionaire conspiracy. They're sad white supremacist Reddit trolls. The fact that Trump blundered on to a wave of it and rode it to power is an accident, not the culmination of a choreographed master plan.
[deleted]
All news is "fake news".
http://thedesk.matthewkeys.net/2013/12/heres-how-conan-obrie...
http://thedesk.matthewkeys.net/2013/12/heres-how-conan-obrie...
Global warming is just the tip of the iceberg (sorry). Seriously though, there are so many ways in which humanity is making the world immeasurably worse and in which our current models of organisation cannot be sustained, and global warming is only one of them. Take for example modern agriculture: we are forced to pour huge amounts of artificial (i.e. not animal manure) fertiliser onto the soil in order to produce enough to feed ourselves. The fertiliser is required due to the extreme pressure we put on the soil i.e. monoculture, expecting a full crop every year, with no fallow periods for recovery. This fertiliser has in some cases to be mined, obviously at some expense in energy terms, from non-renewable resources. The production and usage of the fertiliser consumes large amounts of currently, predominantly, fossil fuels. The fertiliser runs off the soil into the ocean, disrupting the natural balance, with negative side effects on sea life, itself on which many coastal dwelling people depend for food or livelihood. When was the last time you saw this issue discussed in the media?
Sometimes I think that the focus on global warming is negative in that it is far easier for those that stand to lose from wider conciousness about environmental issues, i.e. the usual big business concerns, to counter a single topic than it would be for them to deny the general trend of ongoing worsening and destruction of our natural environment in general. The fact is that western lifestyles cannot be achieved by the whole population of the world without consequent massive pressure on resources. Rather than worrying ourselves solely about global warming I think we would do far better to start reducing consumption, reversing population growth to the point that the world's population starts to decline, and putting efficiency at the heart of humanity's scientific and business endeavours. The chances of this happening? I'd say pretty much zero, because modern capitalism preaches at the altar of inexorable GDP growth, and the rich and powerful aren't going to give up without a fight.
Sometimes I think that the focus on global warming is negative in that it is far easier for those that stand to lose from wider conciousness about environmental issues, i.e. the usual big business concerns, to counter a single topic than it would be for them to deny the general trend of ongoing worsening and destruction of our natural environment in general. The fact is that western lifestyles cannot be achieved by the whole population of the world without consequent massive pressure on resources. Rather than worrying ourselves solely about global warming I think we would do far better to start reducing consumption, reversing population growth to the point that the world's population starts to decline, and putting efficiency at the heart of humanity's scientific and business endeavours. The chances of this happening? I'd say pretty much zero, because modern capitalism preaches at the altar of inexorable GDP growth, and the rich and powerful aren't going to give up without a fight.
Yes, we have problems.
But I would prefer an argumentation that does not place the 'artificiality' of modern farming at the fulcrum as there is no 'natural' farming. All farming is artificial - an artifact of human culture. Farming is a thousands of years old biohack, of whose output we've improved over millenias. Using nitrogen fertilizer generated through Haber process to increase crop yelds is not in any way less 'natural' than manure.
Trace chemicals from e.g. pesticides that leak to all sorts of foodchains, including those where human partake - now, that's an issue.
It's also not very effective to speak of the general consumption of western lifestyle. We can't fix 'western lifestyle'. But, we can fix specific problems, one at a time. The problem needs some metric and the solution needs some predetermined metric to follow.
So, what's the first thing you would specifically fix?
But I would prefer an argumentation that does not place the 'artificiality' of modern farming at the fulcrum as there is no 'natural' farming. All farming is artificial - an artifact of human culture. Farming is a thousands of years old biohack, of whose output we've improved over millenias. Using nitrogen fertilizer generated through Haber process to increase crop yelds is not in any way less 'natural' than manure.
Trace chemicals from e.g. pesticides that leak to all sorts of foodchains, including those where human partake - now, that's an issue.
It's also not very effective to speak of the general consumption of western lifestyle. We can't fix 'western lifestyle'. But, we can fix specific problems, one at a time. The problem needs some metric and the solution needs some predetermined metric to follow.
So, what's the first thing you would specifically fix?
Desertification of crop lands? Increasing pesticide use coupled with decreasing benefit? Depletion of groundwater tables because of land usage that encourages run-off? Substituting fertilizer made from non-renewable resources for a self sustaining form of agriculture?
Destruction of local habits for mono-culture crop development? Destroying complex ecosystems that are perfectly capable of supporting rich crops for humans and replacing them with mono-culture crops like soy/corn/sugarbeets that absolutely fuck the topsoil, deplete nutrients, and fail to support basically any animal life?
I'm not OP, but our current agricultural practices that came out of the world wars with cheap and easy access to "Chemicals" is absolutely a problem. Not because the chemicals are artificial (although that doesn't help with regards to price) but because we're using them in ways that don't create a renewing system. We're literally destroying our sources of water and topsoil to grow corn no one needs.
Destruction of local habits for mono-culture crop development? Destroying complex ecosystems that are perfectly capable of supporting rich crops for humans and replacing them with mono-culture crops like soy/corn/sugarbeets that absolutely fuck the topsoil, deplete nutrients, and fail to support basically any animal life?
I'm not OP, but our current agricultural practices that came out of the world wars with cheap and easy access to "Chemicals" is absolutely a problem. Not because the chemicals are artificial (although that doesn't help with regards to price) but because we're using them in ways that don't create a renewing system. We're literally destroying our sources of water and topsoil to grow corn no one needs.
Thank you, better than I put it.
Firstly, the contrast you draw regarding artificial versus natural farming is yours, not mine. Secondly, surely it is apparent that there is a big difference between digging potash from hundreds of metres below the surface of the earth versus gathering animal manure - for a start, if we make our food production systems dependent on the former we are in trouble if it becomes unavailable, for example through exhaustion or economic/civilisational collapse. Thirdly I'm not sure the term trace is in keeping with the magnitude of e.g. nitrogen run off into the sea - some think the eutrophication of the world's oceans could become as big a problem as carbon: https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-05/uov-at051208...
Fourth, I think we all have an idea of what constitutes western lifestyle, and thus I would say it is an effective term in communicating an idea. Are you really saying you have no idea what western lifestyle means?
Fifth, you ask me what I would specifically fix. I suspect that overall your tactic is to challenge aspects of my statements without refuting the central thrust of what I am saying, but whatever, I will engage. Specific problem: eutrophication due to high levels of fertiliser. How do we fix it? Drastic restriction of food production - there is a massive surfeit of food in most developed countries - and introduction of less destructive methods of agriculture. Why would this never be allowed to happen? Big business would take far too big a hit.
Fourth, I think we all have an idea of what constitutes western lifestyle, and thus I would say it is an effective term in communicating an idea. Are you really saying you have no idea what western lifestyle means?
Fifth, you ask me what I would specifically fix. I suspect that overall your tactic is to challenge aspects of my statements without refuting the central thrust of what I am saying, but whatever, I will engage. Specific problem: eutrophication due to high levels of fertiliser. How do we fix it? Drastic restriction of food production - there is a massive surfeit of food in most developed countries - and introduction of less destructive methods of agriculture. Why would this never be allowed to happen? Big business would take far too big a hit.
> i.e. monoculture, expecting a full crop every year, with no fallow periods for recovery
It's my understanding that at least in the US, crop rotation is required in order to earn farm subsidies. For example, near my parents there is a lot of corn grown, many fields will be left fallow for a year and then planted with soy to impart nitrogen into the soil.
I agree with your general sentiment, though.
It's my understanding that at least in the US, crop rotation is required in order to earn farm subsidies. For example, near my parents there is a lot of corn grown, many fields will be left fallow for a year and then planted with soy to impart nitrogen into the soil.
I agree with your general sentiment, though.
"Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance."
-Neil Postman
This isn't going to get better as AI bots improve their ability to sound human and steer the conversation.
I'm kind of at a loss for a solution to this, aside from trusting only well-established media outlets, but that has its own drawbacks.
This isn't going to get better as AI bots improve their ability to sound human and steer the conversation.
I'm kind of at a loss for a solution to this, aside from trusting only well-established media outlets, but that has its own drawbacks.
Isn't Al Gore rich though? I'm bothered when the elite speak of others as if they're not part of that 1%.
That's the headline. It's not clear that Gore said that. An actual quote is.
> “I mean that those with access to large amounts of money and raw power,” says Gore, “have been able to subvert all reason and fact in collective decision making”
In any case, it's clear that he's not talking about all the rich.
> “I mean that those with access to large amounts of money and raw power,” says Gore, “have been able to subvert all reason and fact in collective decision making”
In any case, it's clear that he's not talking about all the rich.
Is that an actual full quote? When something like "says Gore" is jammed in the middle of a quote, I always suspect there was something else in between. It could be "umm" or it could be something that changes the meaning of the entire sentence.
It's the start of the full quote. I'm sorry maybe you could RTFA.
>“I mean that those with access to large amounts of money and raw power,” says Gore, “have been able to subvert all reason and fact in collective decision making. The Koch brothers are the largest funders of climate change denial. And ExxonMobil claims it has stopped, but it really hasn’t. It has given a quarter of a billion dollars in donations to climate denial groups. It’s clear they are trying to cripple our ability to respond to this existential threat.”
It's a common technique to split a quote like this to identify the speaker and while it's good to be skeptical you should be skeptical of all information, this particular form of quoting is no less and no more infallible to manipulation than the rest of English.
>“I mean that those with access to large amounts of money and raw power,” says Gore, “have been able to subvert all reason and fact in collective decision making. The Koch brothers are the largest funders of climate change denial. And ExxonMobil claims it has stopped, but it really hasn’t. It has given a quarter of a billion dollars in donations to climate denial groups. It’s clear they are trying to cripple our ability to respond to this existential threat.”
It's a common technique to split a quote like this to identify the speaker and while it's good to be skeptical you should be skeptical of all information, this particular form of quoting is no less and no more infallible to manipulation than the rest of English.
> I'm sorry maybe you could RTFA.
The parent's concern doesn't appear to be whether there was more quoted in the article, but whether the article elided part of the quote as it was originally given. You appear to recognize this in the second half of your comment, so I'm not sure why you conclude that the parent hasn't read the article.
Even if you've so concluded,
> Please don't insinuate that someone hasn't read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that."
from https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
The parent's concern doesn't appear to be whether there was more quoted in the article, but whether the article elided part of the quote as it was originally given. You appear to recognize this in the second half of your comment, so I'm not sure why you conclude that the parent hasn't read the article.
Even if you've so concluded,
> Please don't insinuate that someone hasn't read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that."
from https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Yep I kinda wish I could take back the RTFA part, still they could have gone back to the article and searched the page with Ctrl+F just like I did and discovered the full quote. Then they wouldn't have to submit an easily answered question to HN and could have gone on to question the authenticity of the article and it would have been an entirely different comment.
I think at this point we're talking past each other a bit.
As I read the comment in question, the concern was not whether the (article -> comment) reproduction was faithful, but about the original (speech -> article) reproduction. That's not an unreasonable question to carry some skepticism about in the general case, and it's not something that checking the article can answer.
I agree that the cited reason for increased skepticism in this case - the insertion of ", said ..., " - isn't actually cause for increased skepticism.
As I read the comment in question, the concern was not whether the (article -> comment) reproduction was faithful, but about the original (speech -> article) reproduction. That's not an unreasonable question to carry some skepticism about in the general case, and it's not something that checking the article can answer.
I agree that the cited reason for increased skepticism in this case - the insertion of ", said ..., " - isn't actually cause for increased skepticism.
Or maybe that qualifies him? Knowing a lot of other 1%ers and how they tick?
Would you feel better if he said, "We, the rich, ..."?
Funny. Software engineers complaining that someone talking about politics is as rich as the politicians. But you talking about politics on behalf of people who are way worse off than you is somehow different. Its not like engineers are the poorest workers...
How did he get so rich from a government salary?
The amazing answer: he didn't. He was not wealthy (esp by congressional standards) circa 2000, when he retired from government. After that though, he wrote a few books and cofounded a TV network that was sold to Al Jazeera for 100m.
He sold a large stake in a TV network that he was involved with after leaving office:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_TV
And it isn't like Congress is poorly compensated. Currently Senators are paid $174,000 a year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_TV
And it isn't like Congress is poorly compensated. Currently Senators are paid $174,000 a year.
That sounds on the low end for mid-to-late career lawyers, doctors, and businessmen in the DC area.
Of course, the power and fame is seductive, so paying below market rate makes a lot of sense.
Of course, the power and fame is seductive, so paying below market rate makes a lot of sense.
But, most congress people are already wealthy: the average senator has a net worth of $14 million, and the average representative in the house has a net worth of nearly $7 million [0]. There are of course outliers, with some having hundreds of millions and some having negative net worth.
[0] https://ballotpedia.org/Net_worth_of_United_States_Senators_...
[0] https://ballotpedia.org/Net_worth_of_United_States_Senators_...
I don't know what your intention is in sharing this video, but isn't his response to the question posed perfectly reasonable? Al Gore has spent his life fighting climate change, believes we can combat it, and has personally invested in companies he believes can make that a reality.
I don't see how this makes him a fraud in the slightest.
I don't see how this makes him a fraud in the slightest.
There are people who say: "He should put his money where his mouth is". There are people who say: "Of course he says that, he's got skin in the game."
Surprisingly, these are often the same people.
Surprisingly, these are often the same people.
I'm generally against generalizations ("the rich have subverted ...") as it leads to witchhunt and lynching of the wrong people. However, he convinced me that a wrong balance of powers is keeping us too much in the "status quo" of runaway pollution, using misinformation, and is slowing us down in the fight against massive destruction.
But what can we do?
For example, in French politics, there isn't a single person who proposes the right things against climate change. Melanchon comes to my mind, he has a half program against global warming but does hate speech against the 50% richer of the nation (and in France, that mean earning >2000€ pm). And that doesn't even guarantee getting the global warming solved... Macron won't solve much either, unless he digs in the debt, which isn't better for my children. Either way, we're stuck.
But what can we do?
For example, in French politics, there isn't a single person who proposes the right things against climate change. Melanchon comes to my mind, he has a half program against global warming but does hate speech against the 50% richer of the nation (and in France, that mean earning >2000€ pm). And that doesn't even guarantee getting the global warming solved... Macron won't solve much either, unless he digs in the debt, which isn't better for my children. Either way, we're stuck.
I don't suspect that you read the article past the headline otherwise you would have come across this section.
"I mean that those with access to large amounts of money and raw power,” says Gore, “have been able to subvert all reason and fact in collective decision making. The Koch brothers are the largest funders of climate change denial. And ExxonMobil claims it has stopped, but it really hasn’t. It has given a quarter of a billion dollars in donations to climate denial groups. It’s clear they are trying to cripple our ability to respond to this existential threat."
Gore (and Melonchon for that matter too) aren't referring to the "upper 50%", it's not even the 1% mantra of Occupy Wall St, it's an astoundingly small fraction that have this access to lobbying power and campaign funds.
"I mean that those with access to large amounts of money and raw power,” says Gore, “have been able to subvert all reason and fact in collective decision making. The Koch brothers are the largest funders of climate change denial. And ExxonMobil claims it has stopped, but it really hasn’t. It has given a quarter of a billion dollars in donations to climate denial groups. It’s clear they are trying to cripple our ability to respond to this existential threat."
Gore (and Melonchon for that matter too) aren't referring to the "upper 50%", it's not even the 1% mantra of Occupy Wall St, it's an astoundingly small fraction that have this access to lobbying power and campaign funds.
That seems like a pretty big expansion of the concept of "hate speech" beyond what it is generally used to mean.
[deleted]
I appreciate what he's trying to do here, but Al Gore isn't exactly impoverished.
hidflect(1)
How could the rich subvert anything when they control the media/government/wealth/power? Hell they control "reason".
Also, I'm startikng to get a bit disillusioned by the amount of guardian, nytimes, bbc, etc articles here.
I hope HN doesn't turn into reddit.
Also, I'm startikng to get a bit disillusioned by the amount of guardian, nytimes, bbc, etc articles here.
I hope HN doesn't turn into reddit.
Usually Mr. Gore visits places where he gives these speeches (as well as his no less entertaining presentations on climate change and how save the environment by limiting consumption) by means of his private jet.
So, not impressed. Next!
So, not impressed. Next!
If any change is going to be made it's going to come through revolution (a la France) or through someone in the top 1% changing things from the top down (a la slavery). The fact that he gets around on a private jet is neither here nor there - we can live with hypocrisy. What we cannot live with is inaction.
I don't know who are "we" that you are speaking about, but I absolutely can't live with hypocrisy. And large-scale social changes are inevitable anyway -- universal basic income is economically impossible, and transition to post-job economy is nearby.
The very last line of the article explains it all; this is to promote his soon to be release movie. As always, it's about the money.
Most of people's actions have personal gain (be it money, power, recognition, sense of worth, etc...) as their main motive.
But it does not make them necessarily wrong or worthless to others.
But it does not make them necessarily wrong or worthless to others.
True, but I would appreciate a little integrity/honesty. He flies all over the world, multiple times in a short time span, and then makes his money "complaining" that we are using fossil fuels, when he could have just as easily been there via a teleconference. I don't mind people that walk the talk, but Al Gore avoids that.
This is called "tu quoque"[0] or appeal to hypocrisy.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
In this case, the pitch is for sacrifice and discipline. It undermines his argument if he's somehow exempt from the plan.
As in, if even a rich, educated, and passionate Al Gore cannot actually reduce his carbon footprint, is it even doable for India and China?
As in, if even a rich, educated, and passionate Al Gore cannot actually reduce his carbon footprint, is it even doable for India and China?
Al Gore can't personally build a skyscraper, but India and China seem to have no trouble doing that. In fact, you could probably list billions of things that individuals cannot effectively do that large organizations can do.
And even if he reduces his carbon footprint to nothing, all the does is shut him up and temporarily reduce carbon emissions insignificantly. It does nothing to curb industrial processes where the bulk of carbon emissions occur.
And you'll note that hypocrisy is not actually a logic fallacy. A war general has just as much reason to be listened to when he campaigns for peace as a pacifist; because peace stands on its own merit.
EDIT: This isn't even hypocrisy, though. Al Gore isn't asking each individual to fix their own carbon footprint. He's asking institutions to do so. And institutions can do things individuals cannot (due to networking and economic effects), as evidenced by that being the whole reason institutions are formed.
And even if he reduces his carbon footprint to nothing, all the does is shut him up and temporarily reduce carbon emissions insignificantly. It does nothing to curb industrial processes where the bulk of carbon emissions occur.
And you'll note that hypocrisy is not actually a logic fallacy. A war general has just as much reason to be listened to when he campaigns for peace as a pacifist; because peace stands on its own merit.
EDIT: This isn't even hypocrisy, though. Al Gore isn't asking each individual to fix their own carbon footprint. He's asking institutions to do so. And institutions can do things individuals cannot (due to networking and economic effects), as evidenced by that being the whole reason institutions are formed.
He flies all over the world
There are a lot of "Gulfstream liberals" that fly around the world in private jets while telling the 99% how they should live.
This isn't limited to Al Gore. Jamie Dimon (CEO of JP Morgan) quipped this about Davos: "It is where billionaires tell millionaires what the middle class feels."
There are a lot of "Gulfstream liberals" that fly around the world in private jets while telling the 99% how they should live.
This isn't limited to Al Gore. Jamie Dimon (CEO of JP Morgan) quipped this about Davos: "It is where billionaires tell millionaires what the middle class feels."
Sadly it does seem to me that there's an large element of ego behind his efforts.
Frankly, if Al Gore is looking to cash in, another movie about global warming is probably not his best option.
What would you do instead, in his position?
[deleted]
I'd probably work the lecture circuit in the fashion of Hillary Clinton if my goal were cashing in.
Releasing movies keeps him in the public eye which probably doesn't hurt his speaking fees any.
It seems his other activities have been more beneficial though, he made a lot of money selling Current TV and also lots of money sitting on the board of Apple.
It seems his other activities have been more beneficial though, he made a lot of money selling Current TV and also lots of money sitting on the board of Apple.
Well, OK, sure, but that just bolsters the point, doesn't it? It doesn't seem like talking about climate change is the most lucrative activity he's involved in.
BTW this article reminded me of a great show[1] that Last Week Tonight did, about how local news outlets in US are used to manipulate the masses.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvtNyOzGogc