Just a bunch of teenagers on too much mountain dew, uttering inane things, and stuck in a false positive feedback loop. "Everything is funny." Move along, nothing interesting to see here.

I don't know if we'll ever get to an "I told you so" on the anthropogenic cause, but within 10 years or so I think even the hardest of hard core Fox News watchers will have to stop denying that climate change is happening. At that point they will still deny that giant multi-billion dollar corporations and massive farming of the rain forests have anything to do with it, they'll stick to their "it is a natural" cycle, feedback loops be damned, and continue saying "follow the money" when they point to who is saying it is man made, while ignoring their own advice and following the money to who is saying it isn't man made. Even if they do believe it man made, they'll say it won't matter as a large number of the deniers are evangelicals who say Jesus is coming again soon and he'll whisk them away before it gets too bad. I know because I've heard them say this very line, they use this line to say it doesn't matter who somebody votes for as well, though they still follow Fox and vote as the Republican right tells them to vote... Anyhow I think part of the problem is a lack of basic understanding of science, not understanding what a theory is and how it comes about, and the fact it got politicized (and unfortunately for those of us who accept the scientific facts, Gore may have done more harm than good by being a bit more alarmist in some areas and mis-representing some facts for the deniers to point to and say see the whole thing is false). I used to be a skeptic, but then I followed the research trail back on both sides, saw who was saying what exactly, and it became clear that we are screwed...

TLDR: They may come to accept climate change is happening, but still won't accept that humans have much if anything to do with it.

>> ^alcom:

Superstorm Sandy is another example of society's march past the greenhouse tipping-point like the lemmings that we are. I laid it our in arguments in this video, where I was vehemently opposed by doubt-fuelled, fear monger, climate change deniers:
http://videosift.com/video/Climate-Change-Latest-science-update
We're so close to that "I told you so" moment. By that time unfortunately, the methane feedback loop will probably be well under way.

Superstorm Sandy is another example of society's march past the greenhouse tipping-point like the lemmings that we are. I laid it our in arguments in this video, where I was vehemently opposed by doubt-fuelled, fear monger, climate change deniers:
http://videosift.com/video/Climate-Change-Latest-science-update

We're so close to that "I told you so" moment. By that time unfortunately, the methane feedback loop will probably be well under way.

>> ^doogle:

1. Rename this to "The Vocal Powerhouse That WAS Meat Loaf"
2. After watching this and the AFL Grand Final 2011, my expert amateur opinion is that he's losing his hearing.
He definitely has the range and the voice, but it's hitting the wrong notes, and he's not gauging it right. It's not like he's Axl Rose who's lost his raspiness, Axl is hitting the right notes (albeit like a schoolboy falsetto).
Not entirely unlikely for Meat Loaf; his age makes him likely to lose his hearing. Add to that being a musician surrounded by loud music: very likely. He's putting in the energy, but doesn't have that feedback loop that those belted out vocals are missing the mark. He may as well be covering his ears and screaming. Which is kind of what it sounds like.
My two cents.

I suppose it could be...but it hurts to see one of the best voices of our (my, anyway) lifetimes lose it. How long ago was Bat Out of Hell 3 recorded...because he was nothing short of perfect for that one. That's a lot of damage to show up in 6 short years.

Certainly the climate has changed before man became involved. That's not the point. The point is that the specific changes that we should be concerned about are the changes that we are responsible for. These are the changes in climate that we can have an effect on, because these are the changes in climate that we effected.

Splitting hairs on syntax only empowers the deniers.>> ^Mammaltron:

>> ^KnivesOut:

The serious scientific community has absolute consensus on climate change. They know it's happening, they know it's man-made, and they know we have to move immediately to mute the damage. The only "debate" is between actual scientists and industry hacks.
I see this statement a lot, but grossly over-simplifying doesn't help the fight against the deniers.
1. Climate change is categorically not "man-made". It has always happened, will always happen. There's no such thing as a static climate.
2. We are evidently contributing to it, and even relatively small changes in a chaotic system can have massive implications.
3. This particular chaotic system is comprised of vast, intricate and poorly-understood feedback loops. There may or may not be anything we can do about climate change. Stopping with the planet-rape is a good idea in any case.

>> ^KnivesOut:


The serious scientific community has absolute consensus on climate change. They know it's happening, they know it's man-made, and they know we have to move immediately to mute the damage. The only "debate" is between actual scientists and industry hacks.

I see this statement a lot, but grossly over-simplifying doesn't help the fight against the deniers.

1. Climate change is categorically not "man-made". It has always happened, will always happen. There's no such thing as a static climate.

2. We are evidently contributing to it, and even relatively small changes in a chaotic system can have massive implications.

3. This particular chaotic system is comprised of vast, intricate and poorly-understood feedback loops. There may or may not be anything we can do about climate change. Stopping with the planet-rape is a good idea in any case.

1. Rename this to "The Vocal Powerhouse That WAS Meat Loaf"
2. After watching this and the AFL Grand Final 2011, my expert amateur opinion is that he's losing his hearing.

He definitely has the range and the voice, but it's hitting the wrong notes, and he's not gauging it right. It's not like he's Axl Rose who's lost his raspiness, Axl is hitting the right notes (albeit like a schoolboy falsetto).

Not entirely unlikely for Meat Loaf; his age makes him likely to lose his hearing. Add to that being a musician surrounded by loud music: very likely. He's putting in the energy, but doesn't have that feedback loop that those belted out vocals are missing the mark. He may as well be covering his ears and screaming. Which is kind of what it sounds like.

My two cents.

@hpqp
Good points, all.
However, the "cognition is sacred" (as opposed to "human life is sacred") viewpoint has a hole in it about the size of human consciousness. (Oh man, tangent time!) Some loudly proclaim the presence of a divine soul or spirit, but there is certainly something else there, aside from the physical form.
Obviously, human (and for that matter animal) experience and behavior is influenced by the physical brain and its processes. Damage to it predictably and reproducibly changes behavior and perception. As much as some of us would like to think otherwise, the physical structure and function of the brain influences who we are and what we do as individuals. I would honestly have no problem accepting that the physical universe as we've modeled it functions precisely as it has, autonomously. (Right down to fruitless debates between individuals on the Internet.) Evolution is a real thing. The brain has developed as yet another beneficial mutation that promotes the propagation of its host organism. Input in, behavior out, feedback loop. Click click click, ding.
But the problem is that we experience this. Somehow this mass of individual cells (and below that individual molecules, atoms, quarks) experiences itself in a unified manner, or rather something experiences this mass of matter in a unified manner. No matter how far down you track it, there's no physical accommodation for consciousness. To give a specific example, the cells in the eye detect light (intensity and wavelength) by electrochemical stimulation. The binary "yes\no" of stimulation is routed through the thalamus in individual axons, physically separated in space, to the visual cortex, where it's propagated and multiplied through a matrix of connections, but all individual cells, and all just ticking on and off based on chemical and electrical thresholds. The visual field is essentially painted as a physical map across a region of the brain, but somehow, the entire image is experienced at once. Cognition is necessarily distinct from consciousness.

What this means, practically, is that we must attribute value to cognition and consciousness separately.
Cognition may not be completely understood, but we can explain it in increasingly specific terms, and it seems that we'll be able to unravel how the brain works within the current model. It absolutely has a value. We consider a person who is "a vegetable" to have little to no current or expected quality of life, and generally are comfortable making the decision to "pull the plug".
Consciousness, however, is what we believe makes us special in the universe, despite being completely empty from a theoretical standpoint. If sensory input, memory, and behavioral responses are strictly a function of the material, then stripped of those our "unified experience" is completely undetectable\untestable. We have no way of knowing if our neighbor is a meaty automaton or a conscious being, but we assume. Which is precisely why it's special. It's obviously extra-physical. Perhaps @gorillaman's tomatobaby (that is, the newborn which he says is without Mind) has a consciousness, but it isn't obvious because the physical structure is insufficient for meaningful manifestation. I have difficulty accepting that consciousness, empty though it is on its own, is without value. "So what," though, right? If you can't detect it in anyone but yourself, what use is it in this discussion? Clearly, there IS something about the structure or function of the brain that's conducive to consciousness. We are only conscious of what the brain is conscious of and what it has conceived of within its bounds. So the brain at least is important, but it's not the whole point.
Anyway, there's that tangent.

The "stream of potential life" argument has its limits. Any given sperm or egg is exceedingly unlikely to develop into a human. For a single fertilized egg, the odds shift dramatically. That's why people seek abortions, because if they don't do something, they're probably going to have a baby. The probability of "brewin' a human" is pretty good once you're actually pregnant. The "potential for human life" is very high, which is why you can even make the quality of life argument.

Obviously, you realize how those on the anti-abortion side of the debate react when someone who is...let's say abortion-tolerant ("pro-abortion" overstates it for just about anyone, I suspect) says that they're considering the "quality of life" of the prospective child in their calculus. They get this mental image: "Your mother and I think you'll both be better off this way, trust me. *sound of a meatball in a blender*"
I appreciate that we're trying to minimize suffering in the world and promote goodness, but I think it's over-reaching to paint every potential abortion (or even most) as a tragic tale of suffering simply because the parent wasn't expecting parenthood. Quality of life is much more nuanced. Many wonderful humans have risen from squalor and suffering and will tell you earnestly they believe that background made them stronger\wiser\more empathetic\special. Many parents who were devastated to learn they were pregnant love their unexpected children. And holy crap, kids with Downs, man. What's the quality of life for them and their parents? Terribly challenging and terribly rewarding.
No, I'm not trying to paint rainbows over economic hardship and child abuse and say that "everything's going to be finnnnneeee", but quality of life is a personal decision and it's unpredictable. Isn't that what "It Gets Better" is all about? "Things may seem grim and terrible now, but don't kill yourself just yet, you're going to miss out on some awesome stuff."

Hrm. Thus far we've really been framing abortion as being about "unready" parents, probably because the discussion started on the "mother can choose to have sex" angle.
You've got to wonder how confused this issue would get if we could detect genetically if a fetus might be homosexual. Would Christians loosen their intolerance for abortion if it meant not having a "gay baby"? (Even if it would fly in the face of their belief that homosexuality is a choice.) Would pro-choicer's take a second look at the availability of abortion? Would it still be "one of those terrible things that happens in a free society"?

On western aid, you're spot on. It's so easy to throw money at a problem and pretend we're helping. Humanitarian aid does nothing if we're not promoting and facilitating self-sufficiency. Some people just need a little help getting by until they're back on their feet, but some communities need a jump-start. As you say, they need practical education. I've only been on handful of humanitarian missions myself, so I give more financially than I do of my sweat, but I'm careful to evaluate HOW the organizations I give to use the funds. Are they just shipping food or are they teaching people how to live for themselves and providing the resources to get started? Sure, some giving is necessary. It's impossible for someone to think about sustainable farming and simple industry if they're dying from cholera or starving to death.

I think the way I'd put it is that I disagree that "Hegelian dialectic" is being appropriately used in the video. Here is a nice concise introduction to the concept. It's an alternative method for reasoning, and therefore is about trying to reach a better understanding of truth -- it has nothing to do with psychology, politics, or trying to control people.

The triadic structure of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis can, if you squint a bit, be re-purposed as a general theory about how political and scientific progress happens. First you have a thesis (e.g. "property is the only right"), then you have an antithesis ("property is theft"), and once people realize that while both positions contain insights, neither absolute position is fully correct, and so we generate a new thesis that combines the valid insights of each -- a synthesis ("a right to property is one of many rights, and without limits can and will infringe on those other rights"). But that's not a Hegelian Dialectic, that's just a slightly stilted way at looking at how "classical" reasoning sometimes plays out in the real world.

All that said, none of this serves to support the thesis that modern conceptions of the political left and right have been invented in order to achieve some sort of nefarious synthesis. Worse, if you think it's a Hegelian Dialectical synthesis we're heading for, then not only is it not a Reichstag fire, it's a giant leap forward in humanity's understanding of itself, because we will have figured out how to simultaneously resolve the left's criticisms of society (not enough equality in wealth and power), and the right's (too many people disputing the rightful distribution of wealth and power that arises from market action), though personally I don't think the resolution of that thesis/antithesis conflict will result in synthesis, just in the right's thesis being discarded. Again.

Long story short, if this is the foundation for a conspiracy theory, it's already gone way out into left field before it's even gotten started.

In reply to this comment by enoch:
In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
The Shock Doctrine and disaster capitalism are a lot more precise concepts than this. The idea behind the Shock Doctrine isn't that all conceptions of left and right are a distraction from the so-called "real" issues, it's where you foment a series of national crises in order to subvert the mechanisms of democracy in order to implement radical policies that would only be acquiesced to when people were in a state of shock.

In the case of disaster capitalism, you actually get a nice feedback loop. Deregulate markets, newly deregulated markets crash and create an economic crisis, and new "reforms" which further deregulate markets are proposed as the solution to the crisis created by the last round of deregulation. See all economic policy proposed by Republicans since the 1980's for examples.

There's also a burden of proof fallacy at work here. 3 cherry-picked quotes from Bush and Kerry on Iraq does not a conspiracy make. The political divide in the country in 2004 over Iraq clearly had the "stay forever" and "get out now" poles to it. That the Democratic candidate was moderate and said merely "don't stay forever", is more a sign of there being a right-wing conspiracy rigging elections and corrupting the Democratic party, not that the very idea of left and right having policy disagreements is some sort of elaborate distraction.

The thing I'm sensing in a lot of liberals these days is the sense that even when we win elections, we're still pretty much getting Republican policies rammed down our throats. We're even doing this thing where we Occupy places in protest of the 1% corrupting our political process and subverting the will of the people...


hey man,
i cant tell if you are agreeing with the video or not.
i am going to guess on the negative.
which kind of confuses me because the video is really just laying out what the hegelian dialectic is and how it can be used to be a lever of control.(sans the ron paul filler at the end).
i found it a pretty short but succinct in its intended goal to educate.

your descriptions of "shock doctrine" and "disaster capitalism" are correct but your premise seems to ignore that both utilize the hegelian dialectic to execute properly in to a society.

example:
problem (thesis)<------------------> reaction (antithesis)

but what if the institution meant to execute the reaction is the very same institution which created the problem,and hence is in the position to offer a solution? a solution which may have been the very thing they were after in the first place?

see where i am going with this?
so while in one scenario the problem is a creation,a facade, (shock doctrine) and the other (disaster capitalism) is an opportunistic leap for control,BOTH utilize the hegelian dialectic to accomplish their goals.

i am not a huge admirer of hegel (ok,i think he is a cunt) but he did understand human beings and the societies they live in because his predictions have played out quite accurately,when placed in the right context.

my thinking behind posting that video was to help people become aware of those levers of control.the philosophy behind those who wish to dominate and control the masses.
the more you know and all that jazz.

once you understand the hegelian dialectic and HOW it is used,you will see it in places and used in ways that prior you would have thought impossible.
it is used by those in power often and extremely well.

anyways.i just wanted to drop a note to you because either i misunderstood your comment or i am just a tad retarded.
in either case my friend,know that i love your commentary and i especially love your optimism.
really..keep up the optimism.my cynicism needs a dose every now and then.
peace brother.

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
The Shock Doctrine and disaster capitalism are a lot more precise concepts than this. The idea behind the Shock Doctrine isn't that all conceptions of left and right are a distraction from the so-called "real" issues, it's where you foment a series of national crises in order to subvert the mechanisms of democracy in order to implement radical policies that would only be acquiesced to when people were in a state of shock.

In the case of disaster capitalism, you actually get a nice feedback loop. Deregulate markets, newly deregulated markets crash and create an economic crisis, and new "reforms" which further deregulate markets are proposed as the solution to the crisis created by the last round of deregulation. See all economic policy proposed by Republicans since the 1980's for examples.

There's also a burden of proof fallacy at work here. 3 cherry-picked quotes from Bush and Kerry on Iraq does not a conspiracy make. The political divide in the country in 2004 over Iraq clearly had the "stay forever" and "get out now" poles to it. That the Democratic candidate was moderate and said merely "don't stay forever", is more a sign of there being a right-wing conspiracy rigging elections and corrupting the Democratic party, not that the very idea of left and right having policy disagreements is some sort of elaborate distraction.

The thing I'm sensing in a lot of liberals these days is the sense that even when we win elections, we're still pretty much getting Republican policies rammed down our throats. We're even doing this thing where we Occupy places in protest of the 1% corrupting our political process and subverting the will of the people...


hey man,
i cant tell if you are agreeing with the video or not.
i am going to guess on the negative.
which kind of confuses me because the video is really just laying out what the hegelian dialectic is and how it can be used to be a lever of control.(sans the ron paul filler at the end).
i found it a pretty short but succinct in its intended goal to educate.

your descriptions of "shock doctrine" and "disaster capitalism" are correct but your premise seems to ignore that both utilize the hegelian dialectic to execute properly in to a society.

example:
problem (thesis)<------------------> reaction (antithesis)

but what if the institution meant to execute the reaction is the very same institution which created the problem,and hence is in the position to offer a solution? a solution which may have been the very thing they were after in the first place?

see where i am going with this?
so while in one scenario the problem is a creation,a facade, (shock doctrine) and the other (disaster capitalism) is an opportunistic leap for control,BOTH utilize the hegelian dialectic to accomplish their goals.

i am not a huge admirer of hegel (ok,i think he is a cunt) but he did understand human beings and the societies they live in because his predictions have played out quite accurately,when placed in the right context.

my thinking behind posting that video was to help people become aware of those levers of control.the philosophy behind those who wish to dominate and control the masses.
the more you know and all that jazz.

once you understand the hegelian dialectic and HOW it is used,you will see it in places and used in ways that prior you would have thought impossible.
it is used by those in power often and extremely well.

anyways.i just wanted to drop a note to you because either i misunderstood your comment or i am just a tad retarded.
in either case my friend,know that i love your commentary and i especially love your optimism.
really..keep up the optimism.my cynicism needs a dose every now and then.
peace brother.

The Shock Doctrine and disaster capitalism are a lot more precise concepts than this. The idea behind the Shock Doctrine isn't that all conceptions of left and right are a distraction from the so-called "real" issues, it's where you foment a series of national crises in order to subvert the mechanisms of democracy in order to implement radical policies that would only be acquiesced to when people were in a state of shock.

In the case of disaster capitalism, you actually get a nice feedback loop. Deregulate markets, newly deregulated markets crash and create an economic crisis, and new "reforms" which further deregulate markets are proposed as the solution to the crisis created by the last round of deregulation. See all economic policy proposed by Republicans since the 1980's for examples.

There's also a burden of proof fallacy at work here. 3 cherry-picked quotes from Bush and Kerry on Iraq does not a conspiracy make. The political divide in the country in 2004 over Iraq clearly had the "stay forever" and "get out now" poles to it. That the Democratic candidate was moderate and said merely "don't stay forever", is more a sign of there being a right-wing conspiracy rigging elections and corrupting the Democratic party, not that the very idea of left and right having policy disagreements is some sort of elaborate distraction.

The thing I'm sensing in a lot of liberals these days is the sense that even when we win elections, we're still pretty much getting Republican policies rammed down our throats. We're even doing this thing where we Occupy places in protest of the 1% corrupting our political process and subverting the will of the people...

>> ^renatojj:

>> ^Stormsinger:
Capitalism is virtually guaranteed to become state-sponsored, over the long run, especially in a democracy (or republic, there's little effective difference). When the government has no built-in opposition to the capitalist class, sooner or later, it gets bought.
The big question is how do you build in a negative feedback loop to limit the power of the oligarchs.
I think what truly undermines capitalism is:

- Public education: if you let people be educated by the state, they'll be deprived of the critical thinking needed to challenge it.
- Economic intervention: if government has any power over the economy, those with money will buy that power. Are TV networks and newspapers lobbying government to censor competitors? No, because censorship is unnaceptable in a free speech society.
Oligarchs don't want free markets, they're the ones who built this crony capitalism, where they get to make rules for their own benefit.

- The issue has -nothing- to do with public education. Even the stupidity of our electorate has nothing to do with education...it's that most people don't care about anything past the end of their nose, and are too stupid to actually think about issues in the first place. Education won't change that, it never has. But it makes a nice red herring.


- Yes, of course. The answer to a capture of regulators is to abandon all regulation on the offenders whatsoever...I'm sure that'll make things better. We can obviously count on their better nature to ensure our well-being, once we stop trying to do it for ourselves. Typical libertarian lunacy. You might want to see Somalia for the actual results of that sort of thinking.

A much better answer is to design a system such that those people involved in regulating have an incentive (and the power) to stay opposed to any increase in power of the oligarchs. Negative feedback loops are the time-proven method of maintaining a balance. Designing such a social system is difficult, of course, and implementing it is likely to require a violent overthrow of our current system. But it's going to have to happen sooner or later, if we want an end to these boom-and-bust cycles of the robber barons.

>> ^Stormsinger:

Capitalism is virtually guaranteed to become state-sponsored, over the long run, especially in a democracy (or republic, there's little effective difference). When the government has no built-in opposition to the capitalist class, sooner or later, it gets bought.
The big question is how do you build in a negative feedback loop to limit the power of the oligarchs.
I think what truly undermines capitalism is:



- Public education: if you let people be educated by the state, they'll be deprived of the critical thinking needed to challenge it.

- Economic intervention: if government has any power over the economy, those with money will buy that power. Are TV networks and newspapers lobbying government to censor competitors? No, because censorship is unnaceptable in a free speech society.

Oligarchs don't want free markets, they're the ones who built this crony capitalism, where they get to make rules for their own benefit.

>> ^Trancecoach:

Seems to me that the People need to vote with their dollars and stop, for example, buying Dominos Pizza, once they learn that it's profits support anti-gay campaigns, or Snapple once they learn that it's owned by Rush Limbaugh, and so on.>> ^Stormsinger:
Capitalism is virtually guaranteed to become state-sponsored, over the long run, especially in a democracy (or republic, there's little effective difference). When the government has no built-in opposition to the capitalist class, sooner or later, it gets bought.
The big question is how do you build in a negative feedback loop to limit the power of the oligarchs.


That's effectively the situation today...and we see how well that's been working. If it worked, this video wouldn't exist.


In order for that approach to be effective, it requires a change in normal human behavior...such that
many people would willingly inconvenience themselves for principles that don't immediately affect them.

If we can change human nature, we don't need any other answer. Let's just change it so capitalism (or communism, or objectivism) works well without regulation. They all work fine if those pesky humans would just do what the various Utopians think they should.

Seems to me that the People need to vote with their dollars and stop, for example, buying Dominos Pizza, once they learn that it's profits support anti-gay campaigns, or Snapple once they learn that it's owned by Rush Limbaugh, and so on.>> ^Stormsinger:

Capitalism is virtually guaranteed to become state-sponsored, over the long run, especially in a democracy (or republic, there's little effective difference). When the government has no built-in opposition to the capitalist class, sooner or later, it gets bought.
The big question is how do you build in a negative feedback loop to limit the power of the oligarchs.