Vlad Putin on Greta. It is not that he doesn’t respect young people or ideas of sustainability, it is just that the world is too complex to be understood by little girls. And of course, there is the cost of things. This is the essence of what bureaucratic double talk tends to be. I could also say that this is the essence of conservative thinking. The basis of the argument is that someone else does not understand what is obviously clear to leadership. This is the essential idea that gets passed on through the media to pretty much everybody. The answer of course, especially if you are happy and comfortable in your life because you have achieved enough wealth and mobility to make the modern world at least seem enjoyable, is to say that the point is moot. It is available for argument but there’s no sound truth. It’s just too complex to bother with and so the status quo should be allowed to continue.
In the next clip, Greta talks to a well meaning autocrat. You often hear the argument posed as to whether or not there is actual knowledge. Here, she is asked to defend herself. Has she actual true and real knowledge that what she is saying is so? Greta is actually pretty good. She has a stern scientific background. She likes mathematics and seems to understand rather complex bits of information that perhaps someone who is less educated or even has the same directness but for the continuation of the economy might find offensive. Of course she can’t know this. She is autistic. This means something to someone but what it really means is that nothing she says needs to be taken seriously. I suppose we could also say that she speaks to quietly or too loudly or too directly. She uses too many numbers or not enough numbers. She is too well known, too feminine or too aggressive. There is something in the presentation that disallows the truth to come through. That’s the main thing to remember. There is no truth that can be known and therefore people who try to make arguments, especially about environmental problems, are just asking for trouble. They are being offensive and therefore only a good defense is required to stop them.
Meanwhile, our hero is more than an image on instagram and seems to enjoy getting in the game. Now however we are no longer in the world of verbal arguments. Now we have people sitting in the road trying to stop cars. They are bringing signs and they are chanting. They are against the oil business. This seems to be the number one deal. Something is definitely wrong here. These disruptive and obnoxious people have it in their heads that pollution from automobiles or from industrial constructions have crossed some kind of line. Again, they are just making an argument but now they are physically trying to stop people from driving their cars. This is unnerving. Why don’t they understand that people have somewhere to go? Why are people constantly getting in the way of progress? Don’t these people have lives or jobs?
And of course, this gets her some press. When I was cruising through videos, and there are many many videos, it is interesting to note that there are those who say that there are protesters willing to get arrested and that this is a good thing. But there are also videos cheering for the people to remove them. There is definitely information in the media saying that protesting is annoying and therefore should be stopped at all cost.
Meanwhile, the world seems to be accepting more and more violence in dealing with the anti pollution movements. The argument here is that people are getting tired of it. Yes, we’ve heard you speak. We have heard what you have to say. Now get out of the way because I have somewhere to go. And really, when frustrations build, sometimes you just have to start getting physical with people. Sometimes you just want to say that you’ve had enough talk, now get the hell out of the way.
I mean, when you have a car and you need to get somewhere, the last thing you need is someone blocking your way.
So, as we understand from the war in Ukraine, the thing to do is to up the technology. Like for example, gluing one’s self to the road. Well there is the humanity of it. You can’t just run them over. True, you could technically and physically just run them over. If somebody is stupid enough to glue their hands to the street, don’t they know that cars use this road? If you glue yourself to a road where cars go, aren’t they asking to be run over? The roads are there for the cars, don’t they know that? If only there were not persnickety laws preventing physically harming other people with your car, most probably these protesters would be gone on the first morning. Zoom, zoom, zoom and in the evening they could bring out the hoses and simply brush the remaining flesh to the side of the road. It would be as if no one had ever said anything at all.
And this is what happens. We’ve already seen this before. We’ve already heard this. People are just getting sick of listening to the same thing again and again and again. Listen, just get out of my way. I have a car. A car is big. You are just a person. You are small. Do you understand the physics. Just move or I shall step on the gas pedal and move you. Get it? If you’re going to annoy me to the point of violence, I will get violent. And once people get violent, other people who are also tired see that it is possible to be violent. And this of course inspires more violence…
Which makes the cops more violent…
Which allows the motorists to get more violent…
And if you have taken the trouble to buy weapons, you might as well use them.
And then they just start shooting because, well, it is enough already.
Commentary
I think the issue here is about accepting what to do about the climate change argument. We know that the word pollution exists. We know pollution is generally a bad thing. But, there are always acceptable levels. That’s what the protesters don’t understand. There are levels of what is acceptable and what is not and you need to clearly define what levels we are speaking about or, you’re just being a nuisance and you deserve what you get. And believe me, if you watch enough of these videos from the conservative side, more and more violence is acceptable. It’s an escalation. They are infringing upon the rights of drivers and people trying to make money. You just can’t do that and expect anything else.
My feeling is that the problem comes in how we deal with the concept of argument itself. This is especially true when you have a single individual who is receiving stimulus individually. I’m talking about whether they are at home and on the internet or in front of the television or if they are in their cars driving along and listening to some broadcaster give their opinion. When you’re driving your car, people love listening to the radio. Podcasts are good. Music is good. Politics is good. People like things that are emotionally stimulating. Nobody wants to be bored while driving a car. Being bored means you might make a mistake. People like information that keeps them well stimulated. People do not like going slow when they have the responsibility of controlling an automobile.
Nevertheless, if you’re going to engage in an argument, there are a couple of rules that everyone needs to understand. First and foremost, if you have any argument, this means not only talking but also listening. Of course you have your idea. No one is questioning that you don’t have an idea or that you’re not intelligent or not capable of making your point. It is just essential that you at least give the courtesy of listening to the other side. You have to let them speak. You need to understand the point of view of the person speaking.
I think it’s a good idea to really be respectful here. It’s unfortunate if the argument being made is a little too technical for you. You are welcome to dumb things down a little bit. If you can’t handle a block of statistics and remember all the details, Greta is just terrible because she gives us so much technical information to deal with, you can at least understand the basics. There is a great percentage of a chance that the environment has been horribly damaged and is getting to some irrevocable point. Species of animals are dying. The climate is changing too quickly. Scientists have given targets of the point of no return. And of course people are gluing themselves to the road in order to stop the cars and the industry. You have to at least get this in your head. Once you’ve done this however, you are free to say what you have to say.
If we are talking however about people sitting in cars, especially people who are not in the media and are not in power as far as sharing information is concerned, you kind of feel a little feeble that there is no one to argue with. You’re welcome to scream and yell. God damn it, why are they in the way of progress? But you never really get to say anything that gets heard. The second problem is, aside from the festering frustration of not being able to vent or be heard, very often people don’t really understand what they themselves want to say. It is important that you clearly understand your own argument. You need to understand your own point of view and what you individually think of as important. You must consider your own position very carefully.
I am fond of writing. I believe actually writing what you have to say down on paper is a very good way of creating clarity. Writing is however rewriting. Whatever you’re going to put down on paper needs to be read. I also think it’s a good idea to back up what you have to say with reasonable statistics and information. Nobody wants to listen to anybody’s spastic ideas. We know you’re frustrated and would just like to hit the gas and get to work but, if we’re talking about making an argument, you have to at least make yourself presentable. If you’re going to take a shower and brush your teeth in the morning so people will accept you, you should at least edit your thoughts so that somebody listening might not be to broken up trying to hear you speak. Also, a lot of people are really sick of listening to other people’s information so you should try and find a way to speak where people would actually listen to you. It’s difficult. I made a lot of money teaching people to speak better in English. I think this means it’s a difficult skill to master. The trick is practice. Practice practice practice.
So you do this. You want to get it straight in your mind that you have something to say and you want to get it straight on paper so that any other human being with even a moderate amount of intelligence could understand that your point of view is right and true. Now it’s a matter of making choices. Here is where you must choose exactly the battle you wish to fight. You are free to say what you want except that you must be very careful not to be lazy. You can’t start every sentence by saying of course it’s like this. You can’t just scream populism. You can’t say anything is really simple especially if it’s not. You have to remember that you are in a fight. This is an argument and in order to win, you have to have a better argument.
And here I think is where everyone gets lost. It’s too much bloody work. In fact, if you have to make a living, you don’t really have time for this nonsense. You don’t really have time for it because you know that no matter how much effort you put in to making a really brilliant argument, and argument so earth-shaking that people will listen to you and follow your ideas, they are probably just going to argue with you. No matter how much trouble you go to to come up with your great argument that driving cars is great and that everything is fine and that all of this environmental defense is just making people crazy, you’re just going to run into people who want to argue with you.
So why do it? In baseball, sometimes the empires are wrong and they have these video reviews. The game stops and everyone looks at the video. Well, sometimes it’s really really close and they just say that you really have to be obvious that it was a mistake or they just let the play stand. A guy wants through a perfect game but on the very last pitch the umpire blew a call. Everyone in the stadium saw it was a bad call and all the video in the world was not enough to change the call. I saw another video recently where an umpire through a guy out of the game for talking when he hadn’t actually said anything. The film review showed that he had not said anything but still, the umpire had thrown someone out and so literally they said pick someone to get out of here. The umpire had made the call and that’s all there was to it.
In this sort of environment, it’s really easy to just say that it’s not worth it. All of this argument is just tiring already. Don’t people know that people have to make a living? Don’t people know the economy is the most important thing? Can’t everyone at least understand but without money, the whole system is going to come crashing down and then there’s going to be chaos. Does anyone really want chaos? It’s extremely easy to say that everything stays the same because you need something extreme to change. If you need something extreme, well, that’s extremism and that’ll never work. Or because you don’t really have a choice to change your situation because the money simply does not work for you, all of this extra work and preparation and thinking is just a waste of time. This is the problem with the concept of the moot argument. If the world and how much damage it can take is in fact a moot argument, if it’s just arguable, why bother?
In my own case, I am a direct speaker and I have a point of view and I do have a place in the media. I am certainly well blocked which cuts out a huge percentage of potential audience but, I do have detractors. One of the main points against me is about whether I am clear of mine. I am an advocate of marijuana and to a lot of people that’s enough for them to say that I am speaking from the cosmos. Certainly, if there is actually marijuana in my life, this is enough to call the authorities and have me brought away. It’s just like the people sitting in the road gluing themselves to the tarmac. Obviously these people are crazy.
I say though that all of the negative arguments about listening to a pro environmentalist like myself is that unfortunately, you have to consider whether humanity ‘s judgment is impaired. We can talk about any of these motorists who believe that just stepping on the gas pedal and delicately moving this obstinate flash aside and question whether or not they are in their right minds. We can see that they are worked up. We can see that they are pushed beyond their boundaries and now are exhibiting signs of true frustration. We can see that they are not opposed to being violent to getting what they want and they don’t like to be stopped. Even a smooth operator like Putin, a man so rich, so well protected, someone who has so many people obviously willing to die based upon his golden words that he certainly must be the most comfortable fellow in the world might just be suffering from his own mental delusions. In fact, even the mathematics of the previous sentence would seem to say that we are not actually talking to an everyday human being with a connection to everyday problems. Human beings just don’t have the wealth of nations and nuclear weapons at their disposal to make their words just a little heavier.
I also must say here that removing meat from one’s diet does a lot to remove the excessive anxiety, frustration and need for blood. I once was refused and interview with a large newspaper in the United States because my storage just didn’t have enough blood for Americans. Even the guardian in all its supposed liberal benevolence refuses to back off meat as a food source. No amount of science can take them off of their point of view. You count stop people from eating meat no matter what the science is or no matter how many times a fellow like me might demonstrate the lack of necessity. Or the amount of clarity that comes when you stop using carcinogens as a food source. This by the way does nothing to talk about reducing greenhouse gases by getting out of the meat business or how much more land can be allowed to be reforested simply by cutting out animals from our diet.
I think what we need to do is have one genuine argument and then allow everyone to vote on it. I really think that allowing individuals to muddy up the waters for the other side does a lot to make things more difficult. Certainly there are those who believe that the environment is the most important thing. Equally obvious is all of the people who believe that the economy is the most important thing. I say that we need one simple honest global vote. We have the technology for it. We can certainly arrange it. I think we need to allow people to speak freely and say what they really want out of life.
I also don’t think this needs to be to complicated. It is well understood that people exist inside and economic model. Everyone has to make a living. Everyone has a mortgage. To have a place to live requires money. To pay for heating and running water or even having availability of clean water to drink or a place to cook some food or even having availability of food all requires certain economic situations to exist. There is no one, unless you live on a private island and do all your own work to raise all of your own food Who is in fact an island unto themselves. And no, you cannot have 9 billion people who wish to be hunter-gatherers at the same time. We would be cannibals in a week because they would not be enough meat to feed anybody.
I think this is the real answer. The real answer is to ask a simple question and then make the adjustment universally for all people. Do you want to continue the current economic system as it is or do we wish to do something that is more environmentally friendly? Do we wish it to be that you must drive an internal combustion engine private vehicle in order to have enough mobility to financially exist or do we choose a more ecologically friendly variant for everybody? Do we wish to live in isolation where it is every man and woman for themselves or do we wish to kind of group up a little bit for the sake of peace, sustainability and to give the world a chance to take a breath and heal from all of the damage we’ve caused?
I think this is the easiest thing to do. I’m doing this little bit of writing on an electronic device that didn’t exist when I was born. Well, it existed but not in the incredibly convenient form it’s in now. If there was no political opposition to a straight democratic vote or even one vote a week for a year, I think we could actually figure things out pretty quickly. I believe if we asked people if quality of life and a clean environment was indeed more important than continuing an economic system that disallows any quality of life, requires constant suffering and slavery and is killing every living thing on the planet just to keep it going, I believe the vast majority of people would agree to take a check, sit at home and start gardening.
This is my eventual belief. When I am through balancing all of the numbers and all of the studying and everything I’ve seen and everything I understand, it comes down to growing food and learning to be cooperative with nature. I understand that I am idealistic in my belief that God is nature and nature is God but I believe that this is the only way to survive all of the crises that we have brought to ourselves. And this is not only pollution but also this rather egregious pandemic that I get to suffer through every day of my life now because my neighbors can’t get it through their head that they have it, they are rotten with it and that they give it to everyone else they touch.
I think we just get the check and learn to live with it. I’m sorry for everyone who wishes to say that they are better than others but it just doesn’t work. We can have sports and games but we can’t make a lifestyle based on it. I’m sorry if it’s a terrible word or words but I think we’re talking about vegan socialism. I’m sorry if that just upset you but that’s what I think is the truth. That is the eventual answer. Group and individual gardening for the purposes of helping to keep people from starving and to allow the planet to survive for future generations of life. I genuinely believe in my heart that if we actually let the world have a vote, this particular election would be very obvious. I also believe that the answer would have nothing to do with increased military spending or the need for security. I think in a world where everybody got their check and just needed to take it easy and help grow plants that we would be just fine going forward.
