you may want to watch this:
https://videosift.com/video/col-larry-wilkerson-breaks-down-the-scariest-scenario-yet

https://videosift.com/video/col-larry-wilkerson-breaks-down-the-scariest-scenario-yet

scary shit mate.

I appreciate your argument, but I don't share your alarm.

Displaced by sea level rise (which would be a gradual thing, but I agree very serious), combined with droughts/floods might potentially fall under "decimation". But only, I think, to the historical definition of 10% dead. Include wars resulting from territory and resource squabbles (should that count as fallout of climate change?), and it could be (much) worse. But still not on a 4-year timescale.

Second, if we're already "way past the tipping point", it logically follows that blame for that can't really be laid on Trump. His policies can certainly make things worse, but I think that 4 years of terrible climate policy in ONE country on Earth (granted, a country with a lot of influence) simply aren't going to be catastrophically, drastically worse than 4 years of magically ideal climate policy (even in a hypothetical scenario where Nader or Stein or Clinton or whatever ideal person was president and could dictate perfect climate policy without being filtered by congress).


So to answer your question, basically no, I don't think that "raising our emission levels exponentially while advocating closed borders will have an irreversible negative effect on the planet and humanity."

One, "exponentially" is an exaggeration. US emissions under Trump won't be an order of magnitude higher than they were under Obama, or would have been under Clinton. In the range of 10% to 50% higher seems well possible, but 100% higher (double) would be next to impossible. Worse, yes. Exponentially worse, no.

Two, "irreversible" is a word I would hesitate to use because it carries an implication that there is some magic bullet to immediately fix things. If a plague wiped humanity off the face of the Earth tomorrow, it would take some time for climate to adjust to pre-industrial levels. Like you said, it might take 25-50 years before things even could start getting better. But eventually, it could be mostly like we were never here. Some things about climate would never be the same, but in broad terms, things could get back to "normal" eventually.

On the other hand, if the plague wipes us all out on the last day of Trump's 4 years in office, it might take longer for that adjustment to happen. But not by a comparatively massive margin. So that's why I dislike "irreversible"; depending on what timescale you are referencing things are either already irreversible, or pretty close to a statistical wash (what's another 4 years in a recovery timeline of 250 years, or 100 in 10000?), or not worth worrying about at all (on a geological timescale that doesn't care 2 cents about things like species extinctions). Does that make sense?

Finally, "negative effect on the planet and humanity" is something that I totally agree with. And that negative effect will be real and significant. But I don't think that the walking disaster that is Trump will make things inescapably, horrifically worse. Not enough worse that it makes a persuasive argument to me that I should have voted for Clinton (again, I didn't vote for Trump, but I didn't vote for Clinton either).

I dunno. Maybe I'm a cockeyed optimist.

@ChaosEngine
that article was utter shit.

"friend zone" is a term used to shame women?
how can that possibly be considered an even remotely true statement?

she makes a valid point in that women are not binary creatures,and are mutli-faceted,nuanced and complex.well of COURSE they are,but the "friend zone" is from the guys perspective,not a woman's!

do you know why the majority of some men end up in the "friend zone"? or should we just change that term to be more accurate "i am not interested in you because you put all your cards on the table in the first five seconds,so while i think that is sweet,i no longer am curious about you,because i already got you".

you know..the "friend zone",or as chris rock put it "emergency dick,just break glass".

the problem here is that while relationships are a long slog of compromise,negotiation and mutual respect to work towards a common goal.romantic courtships are akin to a game,a playful dance fueled by curiosity,intrigue and of course:lust.

the men who who get relegated to the "friend zone" do not understand this very basic tenant of courtship.they reveal all their cards up front,and while that may be the most honest approach,and one that women have been openly asking for,it ignores that underneath it all,a woman wants romance,mystery and a sense of discovery that will continually peak their interests.

they want to be woo'd,they want courtship and romance.
when a man shows all his cards he takes that way from the woman,and now that she knows she can "have" him.he no longer interests her.

and what the author of this article so callously ignores is that the "friend zone" is not really a friend at all,but a surrogate for a boyfriend.having a bad day?she calls her "friend".feeling bloated and unattractive? has her "friend" come over to make her feel better about herself.needs a date for her company christmas party and doesn't want to go alone? get her "friend" to come along.

so it should not be a surprise that some men find this hurtful and degrading.

but she has a point,the woman owes them nothing.the woman was honest and forthright and it is the man who has put himself in this position.

and let me be clear before i am accused of being a misogynist pig.

some men do the exact same thing,and i am guilty of it myself.

i grew up with three sisters,so i tend to be more aware and sensitive to women's choices,and i respect their space.i have never been one to push myself on any woman.i was never the one to pursue or as this article describes "persistent",because i saw that as a bit "stalky".

so if i was interested in a woman,and that interest was not reciprocated,i shifted to "friend" mode with no issue.to me it was a win-win.ok,so she was not interested in me in that way,but she is super cool,and interesting and now i have a really interesting and intriguing friend.

now here is an interesting thing that happened maybe half of the time.my new friend and i would hang out,go to pubs,clubs,movies and sometimes just make dinner and watch movies.friends right? she was upfront and honest with me that she was not interested in me in that way,and i can respect that.

and then one day she would have her college friend over for dinner (this is a true story btw,one of many).her friend was cute,smart,witty and had a sick sense of humor.yep,i was digging on my friends college friend,and we were flirting up a storm.we were vibing hard,clicking like we knew each other for years.

now what do you think happened?
i bet you can guess.
and you would be right.
my friend,who was honest with me about not being interested,started to get real shitty with me.like offensive shitty and i really did not understand why.it came out of nowhere,and now she was acting like some jealous girlfriend.

so i pull her aside and i am like..what the fuck is wrong with you? you are being an asshole!

you know what she said to me? and i can remember this clear as day "watching my friend flirt with you,and seeing how much she is into you.i began to see you in a different light.i can see how she sees you,and that you are amazing but you are MY steve! not hers!".

and then she tried to kiss me,which was just awkward,because to me? she was in the "friend zone",and had been for over 6 months.i didn't want her that way.the irony here is that she could not handle that,and our friendship dissolved.which just fucking sucks.

this scenario has played out in my life quite a few times.so while anecdotal,i suspect women have had similar experiences.

so the "friend zone' may be considered a woman's thing directed at men,but in reality it is non-gender specific.most likely because woman are pursued more than men,but both men and women can be put in the "friend zone".

so what can we learn from this?
don't be a sap.
have some self respect and do not allow another person to use you for their own well being and sense of self.
if they are not interested? move on.
if they just want to be a friend? then be a friend,but do not expect anything more.if you cannot handle that,then move on.

pining away from a distance in the slim hopes that the focus of your affections will one day change their mind,is just pathetic.

and for fuck sakes,stop blaming that person for your heartache.
you put yourself in that position,and you can pull yourself out.

and the term "friend zone" is not used to shame women,that is just fucking stupid.the "friend zone" is a place that you put yourself in,because of flawed sense of romance,and you allowed yourself to be used for the betterment of another human being.so while you may be hurt and angry,you only have yourself to blame.

respect yourself yo.
/end rant

You're right but at the same time I have quite enjoyed television movies and low budget films with that special someone in the cast. For example, I thought the Amityville Horror with Patty Duke (the 4th movie, I believe) was pretty interesting, and not even despite its low budget, because of it.

Besides you're not 100% correct about how the single star drains the pool of resources. Oftentimes these stars act as investment magnets, so people are more willing to help produce the film if it has a star such as Shirley MacClaine. Look at Reservoir Dogs -- did Harvey Keitel detract or attract from the success of the film, and the long term successes of Quentin Tarrantino, Steve Buscemi, Tim Roth and Chris Penn? Like international acclaim -- for a low budget flick from a nobody.

I'm always very curious about these types of films. It requires, for me, an almost scientific, socioeconomic evaluation of the film making process to fully appreciate, or just a curiosity of film and social interactions portrayed in film and around film sets and the bureaucracy of generating the funds and jerryrigging devices to fulfill smaller budget scenarios which drive such a project as this to fruition.

I'm very interested in seeing this movie because it looks like it could actually be good and not just a thing to pan because of the limitations.

I had a film professor who wrote a couple Jean Claude Van Damme direct to DVD movies and his view of film projects was that they are nearly impossible to complete objectives that require self sacrifice and a warrior spirit to fully realize.

Films remind me of how different societies growths are based upon resource allocation, so some societies become empires and some remain scattered tribes and disparate families. Same as in film; this is like a missing link. Strange and curious to behold but human.

Besides, you don't give a fuck about mermaid movies. This is being made for kids that like mermaids lol -- I grew up watching Disney's Little Mermaid, had every word of the film memorized, but I'm certain it didn't matter that it had a better staff and bigger budget because I also had a made for tv dinosaur movie's rap song memorized and written down in phonetic child sound language.

Great video, great explanation technique.

If we created a brain from a map (even a perfect one), put it in an android and set it going, how would we know that it would behave the same way as the person who was mapped? I'm not sure there is a way to really know. Is it alive when it's good enough to trick someone? Is it alive when it's smart enough to turn to you and say, "If you switch me off, will i die?" Is it fair to "kill" that one but not the ever-so-slightly less advanced one who didn't ask the same question?!

Let's say we create a simulation of someone's brain and run a particular scenario by it. Could we predict possible outcomes and their probabilities? That's kinda close to minority report. If our justice system is right 95% of the time but the brain simulation was right 98% of the time, less people would be wrongfully judged so we should act on thought-crime.

@bcglorf

i don't think using @drradon 's example of anarchy a good use as a rebuttal.

now may be larken rose's vision is an extreme example,taken from the von mises institute,and where they dreamily offer a counter to police with a "non-aggression principle".while cute and adorable,humans tend to be far more vicious and violent in nature,especially when desperate.

but again,i think our respective approaches to authority will not find common ground here.

i do not seek a leader,but i am ok with a representative,though i do not seem to have any in my government at the moment.

i find it curious,amazing and not a little disturbing just how easily people will quietly,and tacitly accept a police that has become more and more draconian,violent and aggressive while SIMULTANEOUSLY decreasing the citizens rights to protect themselves,defend themselves and resist unlawful police practices.

because they simply change the law to make what WAS illegal...legal.with a stroke of a pen.

and i simply cannot respect when an american says,without any sense of justice or history,to just sit down,shut up and do what you are told.

while claiming they are a patriot,waving their american flag made in china.

the history of law enforcement in this country reveals that their main job,their main focus and duty is NOT to the poor,the dispossessed or the marginalized.

the police's job is to protect those who hold assets,who have money and wield political power.

and before you say anything,i am quite aware that there are some,and they are the majority,who do their job with honor and distinction.my argument is not about singular police officers but rather the systematic problems inherent in the system.

lets take my city for example.
i am blessed enough to live adjacent to a very wealthy and influential housing development.

average police response time?=7 minutes.

right down the street,not 10 miles down the road,is a depressed area of town.industry and manufacturing abandoned that area 20 years ago.it is stricken with prostitution,heroin addicts and abject poverty.

average police response time?=22 minutes

yet the main police station is in THAT area.

or should i bring up the history of american labor movement?
where the coal miners in west virginia decided to strike,and because the owners of the mines were politically connected.the governor sent in the state police to...and this should send chills down your spine...shoot any miners unwilling to go back to work.

and they did.
they murdered any coal miner still willing to stand up against the owners of the mine,and this included women and children.

now lets examine that for a minute.
workers for a coal mine decided to strike for better working conditions (which were horrible) and actually have a day off,besides sunday (because:god).

the owner of the mine,who was losing immense of amount of money due to zero production of coal,called the governor to have the state police,a civil institution,sent in to put those people down.to force them to either get back to work or face violence.

*now the owner brought in his own mercenary group to assist in the process of intimidation,strong arm tactics and violence.

i will add one more story that is personal,and comes from my own family,and may possibly explain my attitude towards police in general.

my father was born in 1930,in alton illinois.
now that small town had been hit particularly hard during the depression.my father spoke of not having indoor plumbing until he went into the navy,and how the floors in his childhood home were simple boards over dirt.

he grew up extremely poor,and my grandfather struggled to find steady work,and i gather from what my father told me.my grandpa made bootleg beer out of the bathtub.so he and his 6 brothers and 1 sister had to bathe in the mississippi river while grandpa tried to make money by selling illegal hooch.

my father also regaled me with stories of the chores he had as the youngest of 8 kids.it was his job every morning to head to the train tracks and pick the coal that dropped from the coal carts.(which he admitted to being lazy and stole directly from the very full coal cart itself while his brother kept an eye out for the station master).

my point is that my father grew up in desperate and poor times.

but one story always stood out,and i think it is because it has a wild west feel to it that always transfixed me,and i made him tell me the story over and over as a child.

when times are tough,people will do whatever they have to in order to survive,so my grandfather making illegal hooch was not the only illegalities being played out in that small town.neighbor upon neighbor did what they had to,and most were considered criminals in the eyes of the state.

so i guess one of my grandpa's friends was on the run from the law,and sought refuge at my grandpa's home.which he allowed,because neighbors take care of neighbors,at least they used to.

well,in a small town everybody knows everybody,and eventually three police officers showed up at my grandpa's house,and demanded that he turn over (i forgot the guys name).

and i remember the pride on my fathers face whenever he retold this story....

my grandfather stood tall on the top of his stairs facing his front door,holding his gun he was given during WW1 and told the police officers (which he knew.small town remember?),that if they took one step into his home..he would blow their heads off.

now this is a story retold from a childs perspective many years later.i am sure my fathers memory was a tad....biased..but i would bet the meaty parts were accurate.

now my question is this:
how would that exact same scenario play out in todays climate?

well,we would see on the 6 o'clock news how a family was tragically shot to death for harboring a criminal and that the police had done EVERYTHING in their power to avoid this kind of violence.

i know this is long,and i hope i didn't lose you along the way,but i think we should not dismiss the very real slow decent into a society that silently obeys,quietly accepts more and more authoritarian powers all in the name of "safety",and that any form of resistance is to be viewed as "criminal" and "troublesome".

so while i agree that "when should we shoot a cop" should be in the realm of:let us try to never do that.

i also cannot agree to placing cops on a hero platform as if their job is somehow sacrosanct and beyond reproach.they are human beings,of limited intellect,whose main job it is to protect those who own property,have wealth and wield political power.

and with the current disparity and blatant inequality their job has been more and more focused on keeping those 30% undesirables down.

the poor,the destitute,the marginalized,the addict and the junkie and the petty criminals.

those are a threat to the "better" citizens.they are a blight on a community that should be cleansed from the tender eyes of those who are deemed more "worthy".

rich folk may wring their hands,and lament the plight of the poor and wretched,but for GOD's sakes! they don't want to actually SEE them!

so a police officer can do all the mental gymnastics they want in order to justify their place in society,but at the end of the day,they serve the elites.

and they always have.

@bcglorf
you left out that anwar had worked for the CIA and NSC as a consultant,and that in his earlier days as an imam was critical of al qeada and was very pro-american.

look,i am not arguing the fact that anwar did become radicalized,nor am i denying that his shift in attitudes (which was mainly due to americas handling of the iraqi war) had become not only critical,but had gone from condemnation to calls for violence,and praise for violence.

which brings us to the fort hood shooter nidel hasan who was an avid fan of anwar al awlaki,and DID have a correspondence with awlaki.which when examined,was pretty fucking one sided.it was apparent that hasan was attempting to get in the good graces of awlaki who,evidenced by the email correspondence,had no real relationship with hasan.though awlaki did praise hasan,and his violent actions.

so i do not get where 'the emails are closed".just google nidal hasan and anwar al awlaki emails,and you can go read for yourself.

and as for these emails as justification..i really do not see your logic in this respect.

so if someone becomes a huge fan of mine,and emails me constantly because we met ONCE and now they think we are buddies and share common interests (which,maybe we do),and that person perpetrates a violent act.

am i responsible for that act?

and here is where the crux of the discussion REALLY is:
maybe i AM responsible.
maybe i am guilty of inciting violence.
maybe i should be held accountable,because not only did i keep this mans violent intentions to myself,which resulted in death,but then praised his actions afterwards as being the will of god.

there are ALL possibilities,and they are valid questions.
they are legal questions,and maybe there should be a legal accountability.

should the proper pathway to a legal conclusion be:
a.a remotely piloted drone that targets my phone and launches a missile murdering (assasinating0 me,along with innocent by-standers?

or.

b.working with the yemeni government to bring me into a secure facility to be questioned,and possibly charged with inciting violence and prosecuted in an international court of law?

do you see what i'm saying?

the question isn't if anwar al awlaki,as a prominent imam,was vocally against american foreign policy,or that he openly supported violence in the form of terrorism.

the question is:
how do you address that situation,and prosecute the legalities?

because as scahill posited:how do you surrender to a drone?

could anwar al awlaki be guilty of EVERY charge the US accused him of?
quite possibly.
but we will never know because he was assassinated,as was his 16yr old son.

even your counter argument is speculation based on loose affiliations,and tenuous connections.

you will NEVER be able to supply a concrete,and verifiable accounting of anwar al awlaki's guilt,because you CAN'T..he was assassinated.

and THAT is the point.

now let us take this a step further.
let us examine how this can be abused,and watching trump consolidate executive power by surrounding himself with departmental loyalist,loyal only to him,we can begin to see the beginnings of trumps "soft fascism".

now lets take how you made your argument,and supplant a different scenario,but using the same parameters.

do you SEE how easily the drone program could be used to quickly,and efficiently remove opposing political players from the board? dissenting and opposing voices simply painted as violent enemies of the state that were in need of removal,because of the "possibility" that they may one day actually incite or cause violence?

the state can now murder a person for simply what they say,or write but NOT what they actually DO.

anwar al awlaki didn't actually kill anyone,didn't perpetrate any acts of violence.he simply talked about the evils of american empire,the mishandling of the iraq war (which he was originally in support of) and praised those who DID engage in violent acts of terror as doing the work of god.

should he have been held accountable in some fashion?
i think there is case to be made in that regard,but instead of going through proper channels,and adhering to the protocols of international law,he was outright assassinated.

and just how easily this can be abused is incredibly frightening.

again,i understand we approach things from different angles,but you have to see the danger in this practice,and how easily it can be misused to much darker and sinister purposes.

"well,he said nasty things about us and had a lot of friends who were on the terror watch list"

is simply NOT a valid enough excuse to simply murder someone.

there are protocols and legal procedure for a REASON,and anwar al awlaki may certainly have been in breach of international law and therefor possibly SHOULD have been prosecuted under those terms.

but we will NEVER know,because he was killed.
by an american president.
a nobel peace prize winner and constitutional law professor.

anwar al awlaki was an american citizen,his SON was an american citizen,but due to those abominations:MCA of 2006 and the NDAA of 2012.obama had the power and authority to assassinate them both.

where was there right to face their accuser?
habeas corpus..gone...a legal right that dates back to 1205 a.d by the BRITISH..gone.
innocent until proven guilty....gone.
the right to provide evidence in your defense...gone.

all the president has to do..and DID in this case,is deem you an "enemy combatant" and BOOM..dead.

i really hope you reconsider your attitude in this case my friend,because this shit is fascism incarnate,and now trump has his chubby little fingers on the "fire" button.

god help us all......

Do you think their lack of educational opportunity plays into it too?
In your scenario, wouldn't it be easier to radicalize an orphan Fairbs if you only had a 1st grade education, the most out of any of your circle of friends? From what I read yesterday, that is the case for a HUGE percentage of Muslims in the middle east, and not by choice.

I'm not naive that there is rapid radicalization and that we need to get better at fighting that and quickly. It is also very obvious to me that trump actions drive and create terrorists. His bravado on the subject is what helped get him elected, but it could also be part of his downfall, because I see the numbers of terrorist attacks going up pretty soon.
My assumption about why Muslims radicalize is that the west has been bombing the shit out of them for decades. Maybe I'm wrong?
I try to use this scenario on my Mom, but she doesn't usually have much to say about it... 'What if Iraqis came over here and killed you and Dad, wouldn't you think that I'd try to do something about it or that I could radicalize?' I think she may assume some sort of moral superiority being an American or she just doesn't want to believe we could be part of the cause in creating the extremism.

Why must it be an either/or scenario....I say C) all of the above.

Sounds like a best case scenario for a Trump presidency.

Never did a stint as a commercial driver, but passed all the courses and went through down to the Michigan Decision Driving training grounds and did runs in trucks with jacknife scenarios, etc.

He's not drifting there. His trailer brakes are locked up. And because of inertia and ice his trailer is trying to pass his cab.

The goal is to maintain control but keep as low a speed as possible, so you give power to the cab to pull the trailer back into line in a normal situation. In this case he doesn't want to accelerate because there's no safe ground to regain control on, so he's going to aim for keeping the cab going at equal to or just slightly faster than the trailer.

As soon as he hits a clear patch of pavement or level ground then a little bit of acceleration from the cab pulls the trailer back in line behind the cab, drop the acceleration as the drag from the trailer slows you down, etc.

A good reason to always wait before pulling back in after passing a truck on the highway. In an emergency their maneuvers can take long distances when fully loaded. If something goes wrong during your passing maneuver your want to be as far out of their way as possible.

I think it's a trick-scenario. It's a sin to kill one's self, if I recall...

And in this scenario are you really in the room watching? More likely something you would find out about after the fact. You just kinda assumed they knew what they were doing when they closed the door and said they had to take a shit