With respect, from the perspective of an "X"er, the great power of the "Boomers" seems to be for ill. I feel as though we are following a herd of bison across the praire, a herd that has eaten what it wants and trampled the rest. While the boomers wander off into the sunset playing with thier shiny plastic toys they leave a world in which many of us may struggle to feed our children with seeds gleaned from the dust. The rains will come and the praire will bloom again but it's very difficult to predict who among us might survive to see it.
Sorry, I'm being pessamistic again. I spent the weekend in triage in a busy emegency room and it always leaves me feeling a little deflated.
We would all like to believe that we would jump in the river to save the drowning child. The truth is that there are thousands of children in the river right now that we don't have the resourses to salvage. That's not a condemnation, just the recognition that resourses are finite and allocation is uneven.
Again, I apologise. I work in a place were the veil of civilization can get stretched pretty thin and what's on the other side is often difficult to look at.
John
I think you missed an important point. Those eligible for SS insurance programs and SSI are determined to be disabled if they have not reached retirement age. They are, by definition, unable to work at any "substantial gainful activity", defined as:
[quote]Amounts for 2013
The monthly SGA amount for statutorily blind individuals for 2013 is $1740. For non-blind individuals, the monthly SGA amount for 2013 is $1040. [/quote]
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/cola/sga.html
IOW, recipients are deemed unable to earn those levels of income by reason of mental or physical disability. How can you determine what those people can do to "earn their keep" and then find someplace for them to do that work? Logistically it would be a nightmare and, by the time all those cases wind their way through the courts, vastly more costly to the taxpayer. Chances are, a requirement to work would be struck down by the courts anyway.
Doug
I like the herd reference. You're not being pessimistic - you have a unique vantage point, and you're spot on. Xer's comments typically get labeled as complaints or such, with the usual 'suck it up' tag to boot, when most often, the Xer understands their collective fate, and are working feverishly as individuals to navigate and be as prosperus as possible, with whats available. Personally, I think Xer's have a leg up on preparedness due to a lifetime of experiences that have solid 'its up to me' underpinnings. You titled your post with 'Boomers' so you've got eyeballs on this for sure. I think what the boomers and silents get wrong in the discussion is that the anger - at least for me, comes from being told to discuss, explain, and promote some peaceful this or that crap at we all work to achieve a mutually beneficial solution…translation…Keep working and putting money into entitlement programs for me, even at the expense of you and your family. Its never gets said plainly, always wrapped up in the boomer favorite, political correctness. But it is what it is, and it'll work until it doesn't - like most social inventions/constructs I guess.
…of mine. I didn't know, that you knew, what I knew.
I know what you have said, I should have said it, and that way we all would have known what I know. So thank you for explaining all that I know or rather should have expressed that I know. I was incomplete and for that I am so sorry.
My point I thought, was the system pays people to sit at home when their services could be used (for example) fixing abandoned fields up and making them useful for little league, tennis, basketball, horseshoes, and kids just playing in a small park where they could swing, slide, and play in old wooden fire trucks. Maybe monkey bars too. These people on the doll could be mentors or a form of security guard making sure the kids are safe.
I understand that Unions would probably have an issue with this and I thought I should express that too for clarity sake. The City would probably have to insure the place, and police patrol the place, and parents suing the place, and druggies hanging around the place but I am dreaming of a safe place is all, and all the other stuff is why we are in the mess we are now in (that was exhausting and I now find that I am getting more depressed writing this).
These play areas exist in every city USA that were abandoned long ago because of budgetary cuts. I say, get these nice people off the couch, away from the soaps and WEE and outside making a difference for the youth, society and their community, and during this process they will earn something very important: Self respect, a sense of community, and a pride within themselves that is only earned when one gives as much as one takes.
With regards to disability, of course, those who can't work, can't. I will say however, and I have no questions about this, many, many disabled are scamming the system, and that my friend is the truth. I know some now who are in fact doing just that. Welfare too.
I appreciate your engagement as I always try to express myself with clarity. Have a good day.
Doug - I hear what you're saying but don't agree entirely. What did these people do before the blessed and almighty govt rode into town with checks and programs and social workers and anything else the voters wanted to hear…churches mostly. As far not being able to work, I say, well - at what? Certainly theres something for someone to do, simple chores, menial tasks, low-end crappy jobs - as long as its done with pride and dignity, theres honor in that…a place for pride and self esteem. Theres abuse regardless, I think the return of a multi-generational, 'Waltons style' lifestyle is coming our way. Same reason up-scale retirement homes are but a blip in the way old people have and will be cared for - those places can bankrupt decent estates. I just spent an afternoon in one, wow.
If I'm putting words in your mouth - correct me, 'cause I know I'm hijacking your thought. But, in that vein, paying people - any people - to not work and having no demands placed on them is right up there with another idiodic, backward, inbred, stupid government program otherwise known as CRP…paying farmers NOT to plant. Hilariously, then its called welfare or corporate welfare or such!
Churches used to be the social support network, the way it should be again. No more social workers in new vehicles in beautiful facilities…our local gubmint social welfare or whatever they call it now was just totally rebuilt. All of it. New everything, not the least of which is a frickin skywalk - the ten feet or so between buildings was simply unacceptable I guess. But, the churches knew who needed help, and who really needed help. Faith based giving, I think, is at least where the bulk of the care should come - since it comes from the community, and not D.C. Same reason people want to eat local I guess - sort of.
I know a guy who 'taught' severely handicapped kids - very sad stuff. But he didn't teach anything - it was a daycare basically. That, and the rest or it, are just really, really, nice and very, very expensive alternatives to what was formerly referred to as 'warehousing'. Its a feel good for the giver, a guilt reliever for the family, and a burden (financially) on the rest. My wife doesn't think her car is broken until it. just. won't. go. . . …even though the problem has been there, offering hints and clues for some time. But, same deal, we'll do it until we can't - collectively.
Firstly, thanks to Gillbilly and Doug for their voices of reason on what would seem to be (but isn't) a difficult subject.Just not sure how it would be possible for me to disagree with the sentiment on this thread as empahatically as it deserves.
Fortunately, this is a subject that has been cussed and discussed by these with far more wisdom than I, and in fact, these issues were part of the formative years of our country, examined by the great thinkers, and conclusions drawn that were woven into our very democracy. But you’d never know it by reading this thread.
“I care not how affluent some may be, provided that none be miserable in consequence of it.” John RawlsPerhaps it is instructive to revisit some of these arguments, and see what they looked like when they were hotly debated by the thinkers in the era of the American Revolution- and in so doing created the very basis of our Constitution. Here are some excerpts from Thomas Paine’s “Agrarian Justice” circa 1795 as reviewed by Elizabeth Anderson. You can read the entire document here Let's follow along and see if there is any value in these formative theories, or if our modern interpretations as witnessed in much of this thread supersede the Great Thinkers.
Go to the history section of the U.S. Social Security Administration’s website and you will find an extraordinary document: Thomas Paine’s “Agrarian Justice,” written in 1795. In barely a dozen pages, Paine proposed the first realistic plan to abolish poverty on a nationwide scale. It outlined the core economic institutions required to make this happen: a universal social insurance system comprising old-age pensions and disability support, and universal stakeholder grants for young adults, funded by a 10% inheritance tax focused on land. Paine demonstrated, with calculations based on census, living expense, and property data, that his social insurance/stakeholder plan could end most poverty in England.
“Agrarian Justice” made three gigantic contributions to political theory--and political practice. First, its institutional scheme, centered on universal social insurance, has been adopted by virtually all developed countries as the core of their social policies. The central idea behind stakeholder grants--to afford young people the capital they need to be productive enough to avoid poverty--has also been adopted by all developed economies. Under modern economic conditions, its form has been altered to provide human rather than financial capital, via universal publicly funded education, with expenditures concentrated on children more than young adults. Together these two institutions are the primary means by which states today empower their members to rise above poverty, and protect them against market risks and other misfortunes. Second, “Agrarian Justice” is a milestone in thinking about distributive justice. For the first time, the existence of large-scale poverty was theorized as an injustice. Poverty was therefore neither deserved nor inevitable. It had to be abolished and prevented, not merely relieved, and the means chosen must secure the dignity of its recipients, not stigmatize them as dependent and incompetent. Moreover, Paine conceived of large-scale poverty as a systematic injustice. Until Paine, justice was primarily conceived in a transactional sense--in terms of duties to render particular things to particular people, and to avoid force, fraud, theft, and other wrongs in person-to-person interactions. Paine’s essay made a major advance toward the modern conception of justice as a virtue of entire systems of property, to be assessed in terms of its consequences for everyone’s interests. Third, “Agrarian Justice” constitutes a robust defense of a market-based, private property system against communist and socialist challenges. This may seem surprising, given the vituperative accusations of “socialism!” and even “communism!” aimed at recent American health insurance reforms designed to move toward universal coverage. A pall has been cast over social insurance by the suspicion that it is a giant step down a slippery slope to totalitarianism. The actual history of social insurance tells a dramatically different story, which helpfully illuminates core features of the system we have wrought.One of the fundamental principles in interpreting normative social justice is the notion of Natural Law, and as an adjunct, property rights. Any theory of social justice must spring from and reference this most basic of all concepts. Thomas Paine’s moderate interpretation struck a chord that was embraced by the Founding Fathers.
Paine began with the premises common to all social contract arguments: that in the state of nature or anarchy, before positive laws are instituted, everyone is free and equal, no one is subject to anyone else’s authority, and the earth is held in common by everyone. They will agree to join a common legal regime only if it will promote their interests better than the state of nature. Paine followed Locke rather than Babeuf in claiming that in the state of nature, everyone has a property right in their own labor and hence in the fruits of their labor. Locke argued that individuals could acquire property in land by mixing their labor with it and thereby increasing its productivity, provided they left “enough and as good” for others. Since working 10 acres of land makes it yield at least as much as 100 acres in its natural state, in appropriating 10 acres, the landowner effectively gives back 90 acres to everyone else--far more than needed to meet the sufficiency proviso.
Paine disputed Locke’s claim that the private property regime left everyone with a higher standard of living than what people enjoyed in the state of nature. In the state of nature, no one was poor. Poverty arises only upon the institution of private property in land, which creates two unequal classes, the rich propertied class and the poor working class. Since the poor were worse off under the current system of property laws than people were in the state of nature, they have a just complaint against those laws. Unlike Babeuf, however, Paine was no enemy of private property. On Paine’s diagnosis, the problem was not the existence of private property, but the fact that the property system abrogated a rightful property claim in the state of nature. People who had mixed their labor with the land were only entitled to the value added by their labor to the land. The underlying value of the land in its natural state had been unjustly taken from everyone else. The solution to this problem did not require communism, as Babeuf had argued. No could we return to the state of nature, because population growth since the advent of agriculture was too high to be sustained by the hunter-gatherer lifestyle of our ancestors. Instead, to compensate everyone for their exclusion from privately appropriated land, landowners must pay a rent to society, which would be most conveniently paid in the form of an inheritance tax. This would be sufficient to fund the social insurance and stakeholder grant system that would end poverty in most cases. Individuals would receive their rents in this form, rather than in regular cash payments over their lifetime, to satisfy the proviso that any legal regime leave everyone better off than in the state of nature. This requires that the property regime secure all against falling into poverty over the course of their whole lives.And finally, to the notion of social insurance:
Paine’s aspiration to forge a universalistic path beyond class warfare and class paternalism was largely vindicated by the adoption of state-supported social insurance programs by virtually all developed countries starting in the 1880s. While social democratic or laborbased politics were vital causal factors behind the adoption of social insurance programs, it was neither the case that socialists took the lead in forging these programs nor that they were adopted as ideological expressions of working-class politics. To the contrary, social insurance was advanced as an alternative to a workers’ revolution, as proof that capitalism could offer a better deal to workers than socialism. Just short of a century after Paine warned the propertied classes that they might face communist revolution if they didn’t offer workers security, Otto von Bismarck, the Chancellor of the German Empire and Prime Minister of Prussia, heeded his call. Bismarck instituted the first social insurance programs in the world--for health care (1883),workers’ compensation (1884), and retirement pensions (1889). No one could accuse Bismarck of being a socialist: he also secured passage of a notorious Anti-Socialist Law (1878-90) that prohibited the socialists from meeting or distributing their publications, and authorized police to banish socialists from particular cities. While Bismarck instituted social insurance to undermine both the appeal of socialism and its independent labor organizations, the point was not merely strategic. Social insurance appealed to employers as it promoted a healthier workforce, enabled them to pool the risks of liability for industrial accidents, and shifted costs from poor relief funded from general taxation to workers’ contributions. It is no wonder that the socialist parties of Europe were initially wary of social insurance. Their conversion to full support for universal social insurance reflected their abandonment of the Marxist ideology of class conflict and revolution, embrace of cross-class coalitions and gradualist reform, and adoption of a “national” or universal, citizenship-based rather than a working-class interest based normative perspective. Other parties, notably the Christian Democratic parties, also came to embrace social insurance as an expression of society’s obligation to secure a decent life for all. No wonder then, that across Europe social insurance programs were typically advanced by broad-based coalitions.The pragmatic conclusion:
So far it would seem that there could be no basis for the view that social insurance was a step on the path to totalitarianism. Any random person would certainly want security against the various risks against which social insurance offers effective protection. The market system does not offer effective, universally affordable insurance against some of the principal risks for which people want social insurance: unpredictable market shocks that leave masses of workers unemployed in particular sectors, business cycles leading to mass unemployment in recessions and mass destruction of privately invested wealth, adverse selection in insurance markets, particularly for health insurance, that leave essential health care unaffordable for vast sectors of society, and so forth. The random person can withstand the gale of creative destruction that is market society only by boarding the gigantic vessel that is social insurance. The small boats that they can craft using their own resources, or pooling their meager resources with those they can persuade to join them (a prospect that declines precipitously the more exposed they are to the gale), are not seaworthy.
The point of drawing a sharp distinction between what individuals have “really paid for” and what they receive only as a matter of charity from those who are earning their way is not,then, a matter of freedom but of marking a social status difference, between the independent and the dependent. This of course is merely a return to the invidious distinctions of Poor Law thinking, which social insurance aimed to overturn. Hayek attempted to shore up the moral credentials of this distinction by pointing to the fact that Bismarck-style social insurance “redistributes” income in two ways. Most such systems incorporate horizontal (withingeneration) progressivity, such that income replacement rates are higher for lower incomes and flatten out as incomes rise (with contributions to old-age pensions similarly flattening out). Much more ominous from Hayek’s point of view was their pay-as-you-go structure, which incorporates vertical or cross-generational progressivity. As long as an economy is growing in per capita income, each generation can afford to pay higher retirement benefits to its parents than the previous generation could. The standard of living of the elderly is thus lifted along with everyone else in Bismarck-style systems. It is easy to see how, in societies where economic growth can be expected but subject to random shocks, any random individual would be better off under a pay-as-you-go system than providing for themselves out of their personal savings.On the notion that "Boomers" are getting more than they deserve"
It is not only the older generation that has a stake in such a system. The younger generation does, too. The elderly have always depended on the young for support when they became too old to work (or employers no longer wanted to hire them), and have always expected more than the minimal means of subsistence if their children could afford it. The only question is the form in which the young provide this support to their elders. Social insurance insures the young against the fecklessness and bad financial luck of their parents--a benefit private insurance never provides. Bismarck-style social insurance supplies three additional benefits to the young that they could not otherwise enjoy. First, by keeping up with rising standards and hence costs of living, it enables parents to live in independent households, so they don’t have to move in with their children--the overwhelming preference of both generations in the modern day. Second, it helps liberate women from the need to drop out of the wage labor market so they can provide direct care to their parents or in-laws at home. Third, it helps spare the young from the wrenching burden of having to personally deal with the financial demands their parents would otherwise make on them, along with its accompanying resentments, humiliations, guilty feelings, needling, supplication, arguments, and retaliations. The emotional transaction costs of elder provision are infinitely lower when this is mediated by an impersonal, arms-length entitlement system. From a social contract perspective, any random individual acquainted with the dynamics of speculative booms and busts in asset markets, radical information asymmetry, conflicts of interest between financial advisors and clients that are inherent in financial markets, and generational conflict between retirees and their children, would prefer Bismarck style social insurance for a hefty chunk of their and their parents’ retirement needs.
Margaret Thatcher said, "the trouble with communism is that you eventually run out of other people's money….". And that just says it all.For all the wisdom of the founding fathers, they just never allowed for the inevitable onslaught of greed and the permutations of our society - the day they signed that thing was the day the game started…again. Social programs fail because of too many reasons to list. Don't know who said it, but one of my personal favorites is "the trouble with communism is that it only works on paper". Too true.
Danny DeVito had a line in a movie some time back, and in his slimy characters role stated "the only thing better than money, is other people's money".
Thanks for the clarification. I know what you mean when you bemoan the deterioration of public spaces, particularly parks and sports fields. I have a little different view than you about that. Truly disabled people would either not be able to maintain such spaces or would require someone to supervise their activities, thereby adding expenses and responsibilities.
I managed Little League teams for years. Our field was at a town park and was sadly neglected by a town that just couldn't afford extensive upkeep. That left volunteers (us) to fill the gaps. We managed to work out a lot of improvements with a little of our money and the cooperation of the town and LL. F'rinstance, we persuaded LL to buy a batting cage net and the town to buy the timbers and parts for the structure. We did the work. LL also provided a pitching machine, but since there was no power at the field, we supplied a generator. The town knew that the old backstop was a falling down patchwork of old fencing on rusting poles, so were willing to buy us a new backstop if we would tear down the old one and put up the new one. The town hauled away the refuse and LL chipped in with concrete and parts to put up the new one. We built that too. And, of course, we literally rebuilt the field itself, putting in new baselines, a diamond and pitcher's mound according to LL specs. LL contributed the red clay, but we had to transport it to the field. The town helped out there. To this day, thanks to an arrangement we made, the town highway supervisor brings in a road roller every spring to roll the field. None of this includes the work we and the kids did constantly to maintain what we built.
Largely because of the work we did, the town was inspired to build a new very nice outhouse, put in a grill for hotdogs and such and bing in a new equipment shed built by local Amish.
I realize that I am highjacking the thread with this commentary, but to me the spirit of volunteerism can do a lot without asking for help from social service agencies. In fact, because a parent of one of our players worked at a shelter for severely disabled people, she frequently brought them on outings to the games. These are the things that communities do.
Back to SS. While I believe that the current SS system goes a long way to fulfilling the philosophical underpinnings described by Darbikrash (I very much appreciate the contribution), there is no doubt that it is taken advantage of by low level grifters and people who could work, but can't find work in these economic times. Applications for benefits have gone way up since 2009. I'm convinced that the benefits and payments provided relief for many who would not have been employed through no fault of their own over the past few years. The jobs just weren't and aren't out there. I'm equally sure that fact did not go unnoticed by tptb.
Finally, when we get down to the reasons people become and stay disabled, there is a vast amount of improvement that could be incorporated into the system that is already required by the regulations, but not enforced. Obesity and lack of conditioning plays a huge part in the disability rolls. I guess requiring people to comply with medical advice to improve functioning is too much to ask. It shouldn't be.
Doug
I too have been involved with kids activities my entire life. We too (always the same men and women) of each set on new kids are the ones who keep the programs running. Good people who are motivated by their kids and learn to love what they are doing, and truly as a spin off help the overall community. Many of our friends, important contacts, will be the ones who someday assist us when things get really bad. We live with farmers, special skilled and hard working people, and we consider ourselves in this class also. They/we have extensive weapons training too as hunters of just about everything. It's a small town community where everyone knows everyone and, where everyone knows every square inch of real estate. Where the police are often kids we coached while kids and helped stay the straight and narrow throughout their lives.
I understand disability very well as my sister was born into this world without skin over her stomach, so all internals were exposed and skin had to be grafted over this area. As a consequence is retarded or special. We are three years apart so watching her and other special needs people my entire life I perhaps have a different perspective. My sister for instance was never to attain the age of a 3 year old mentally, and physically she was way behind the curve. My sister attained many levels above her born into diagnosis and because our family unit was so lovely and attentive she too was overstimulated to be more. I say all of this so you understand my short answer thoughts are a quick recollection of lifes experiences and can be brief then when writing.
Bottom line, we all can be so much more if we get and stay into the mind set that it is always in our best interests if we try and give more than we receiver. Also for the record I have no issues helping my fellow man when times are tough but in return we should expect that menial tasks be performed that otherwise no one else has the time to do because they are working to keep some peoples butt on the couch.
Have a great day as I always find your threads very sensible even if I don't fully understand your point of view. I look forward to having mine critiqued as well so that I can be made aware my short comings.
YOGI
This seems like it might be important, anyone want to weigh in?
http://www.guymcpherson.com/2013/01/climate-change-summary-and-update/
John
John,
I've brought up this topic on other threads and I appreciate you bringing it here as well. I don't know if Guy McPherson is correct in his conclusion regarding near term extinction, but he does point to the science that has led him to this conclusion. And it is frightening. I asked Mark Cochrane (climate thread) about it and he doesn't appear to agree with this dire prediction. But who knows for sure? We are already seeing more rapid change than was predicted previously and much of that didn't take the positive feedback loops into consideration. I am very concerned, and I also wondered in those earlier posts whether it made sense to prepare. Around the time I made those comments, Chris and Adam both wrote articles taking a more upbeat attitude and they continue to encourage preparation. This whole site is clearly geared towards taking proactive measures in light of collapse. I understand that. But I have agonized over the possibility that Guy is right - at the very least we are living on a very different planet and one that will continue to alter in major ways. I get the feeling that we, in general, don't have any idea just how severe those changes are/will be and how much they will affect our attempts to carry on. So that is why I have questioned what it is exactly that I am preparing for. We are living in times like no other. Perhaps it is human conceit that makes it so hard to imagine the planet without us.
It could be that concerns about SS and so on are all moot. But we continue to discuss such issues and to make our preparations because that is what we humans do. It gives us something to DO which feels better than facing what could be our demise as a species. But it is also why I talk about grief and the need to process our emotions as events play out. Those already impacted by floods, fires and droughts know that kind of loss and the ensuing struggle to pick up the pieces of their lives. As the economic and climate blows continue to rain down, it will become harder and harder to find some sort of equilibrium. The losses will keep coming. We can try to build as much resilience into our lives as we can, but then again Hurricane Sandy took everything from those directly affected. All we can do is our best given what we know now.
I don't mean to be depressing; this topic needs to be discussed. When we are seeing 150 mile wide methane plumes in the Artic, it is time to wake up. It's time to have the difficult conversations because we just may be past the point of no return. And what will that mean for current generations much less those yet to be born?
Joyce
…really, what can we do about it now? I prepare as though today is my last day and I'll be darn if I will agonize over my lot in life. I just finished 9 holes of golf in this heat, got all lathered up walking a challenging course about 10 minutes from here. I ran into friends and neighbors. Kids I coached while they grew up and had warm exchanges. I now have the pool cleaned, my 8x8x18 inch pool that my Lady and I will sit in this late afternoon. If we're not too tired we'll do a couple of laps. We'll eat, watch the ballgame and probably nod off together on the couch before retiring. If this is it then what a way to go out, don't you think? What more can I do, can I undo what is done, and if so do I need permission?
YOGI
John,
Mr. McPherson and his viewpoints have been discussed extensively in other fora on this site, including Chris and Adam's last Q&A and the climate change thread. I have expressed my view that his prediction of a human extinction event will begin in 2031, give or take 13 years, is a bit extreme. I do like the range of projections he offered in the article you linked.
[quote]
Large-scale assessments
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (late 2007): 1 C by 2100 Hadley Centre for Meteorological Research (late 2008): 2 C by 2100 United Nations Environment Programme (mid 2009): 3.5 C by 2100 Hadley Centre for Meteorological Research (October 2009): 4 C by 2060 Global Carbon Project, Copenhagen Diagnosis (November 2009): 6 C, 7 C by 2100 United Nations Environment Programme (December 2010): up to 5 C by 2050[/quote]That about covers the range of projections I've seen. The two ends ( 1C by 2100 and 5C by 2050) are the extremes of those projections, and should probably be considered the least likely outcomes. OTOH, as McPherson points out, scientific projections have proven consistently conservative when compared to actual outcomes, so who knows. The possibility of further positive feedbacks is quite worrisome and needs to be carefully considered. If you haven't been following the climate change thread, I encourage you to do so: https://peakprosperity.com/forum/definitive-global-climate-change-aka-global-warming-thread-general-discussion-and-questions/71 Doug
[quote=jdye51]I don't mean to be depressing; this topic needs to be discussed. When we are seeing 150 mile wide methane plumes in the Artic, it is time to wake up. It's time to have the difficult conversations because we just may be past the point of no return. And what will that mean for current generations much less those yet to be born?
[/quote]
Joyce,
I haven't kept up with the climate change thread because I see it as an exercise in hand wringing and angst. The "science" is based on observations that are heavily weighted to recent times. The "science" is really just modeling based on those data and may or may not track the actual driving forces. As you noted in the prior paragraph:
It gives us something to DO which feels better than facing what could be our demise as a species.You suggest that we have the difficult conversations about this. I like to look at the options realistically available to us and then work backwards. For instance, is it realistic to think that we'll escape this planet and inhabit another world so humanity can avoid extinction? It might be for a small handful, but not for the 7+ billion who will be left behind. Why consider that as an option? So, if we agree that anthropogenic carbon dioxide is the problem (and I don't,) we need to reduce its production and <sarc> all will be fine </sarc>. How are we going to accomplish that goal without major disruptions to the economic well being of the humans on the planet? How would you feed 7+ billion without fossil fuels? Wouldn't it take a "One World Government" to ensure compliance? That cure would be worse than the disease. (They can't manage a simple system like social security.) What about forest fires and volcanoes? Natural processes beyond our control produce massive amounts of carbon dioxide. Perhaps what is driving the "climate change" is the activity in the sun. Sunspots appear dark because they release energy at a wavelength our eyes cannot detect. These shorter wavelength emissions have more energy content. Just as the warmest days of summer occur after summer solstice, perhaps it is taking time for the modern maximum's effect to be felt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycleThe above graph ends with solar cycle 23. The current solar cycle (Cycle 24) is near its peak and is producing fewer sunspots than any in nearly 2 centuries. The graph below shows cycles 19-24 to give a better perspective.
http://sidc.oma.be/html/wolfmms.htmlIs this the beginning of a new minimum or just an anomaly? I honestly don't know what to make of it yet. It will take several more cycles before we know. By that time, I plan to be dead. My point is that our options are extremely limited. If you want to have an adult-sized conversation, start with the end in mind. There is a time for grieving and a time to be pragmatic. Grover
Grover,
Perhaps what is driving the "climate change" is the activity in the sun.
Really? You don't think that this was ever thought of before? The solar sunspot cycle you illustrate above occurs roughly every 11 years. When the number of sun spots is high, so is the radiant output of the sun. This seems counterintuitive since the sunspots appear dark but the contrast is enhanced by the upwelling of extra warm mass around the spots and so total solar irradiance increases. When there are few spots then the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth diminishes a bit. The change from peak to trough is roughly 0.1% (1.3 Watts per square meter).
If the climate were stable then we'd get a little warmer during the peaks and a little colder during the valleys of your sunspot figure. We've been getting steadily warmer throughout the last several decades. Also, note the lows of the last cycle were extended and lower than any other solar cycle in a century, now we are peaking at the lowest level in a long time as well.
So to answer your question. It is not changes in solar output that are causing climate change. If anything, they are currently masking the magnitude of the problem given the current lower solar irradiance as compared to previous solar cycles.
Add to this the fact that the majority of 'global warming' is happening at night (minimum daily temperatures are rising faster than maximum daily temperatures) and you can see that this can't be caused by the sun.
Climate change is going to disrupt the economy whether we reduce our emissions or not. It is currently estimated to devour roughly 1.6% of global GDP (source) and it is only going to increase as a stealth tax on everything through disruptions in all of our systems and lives. Climate change isn’t an event that is coming, it is already a predicament that we will have to manage. We missed our chance to avoid this problem and now we have to act to both mitigate and adapt to change. The only question is whether or not we want to act proactively to minimize the damage or keep the pedal to the metal so that we privileged few can die fat, dumb and happy while leaving our children and grandchildren to pick up all of the costs. That's the real adult-sized conversation we should be having. If you are up for having it, feel free to come on over to the Climate Thread.
Cheers,
Mark
Hi Joyce,I awakened to the seriousness of the climate change problem about seven years ago. And although I really doubt we will see a near term extincion event as predicted by Guy McPherson, I believe what Mark Cochrane is telling us just cause for great concern.
And although you say that this site is about encouraging preparation for a rapidly changing world, IMO the main concern, and primary focus here is economic/financial. To me PP is a financial site, and I think it's helpful to realise that this site is also a business.
So in this light I can certainly understand why the official position of PP is to avoid the climate change issue. It's just too divisive. And I'm sure the concern here is that this issue, if given more of an opportunity, could dominate the site.
It's a bewildering situation for those of us who understand the seriousness of the environmental crises. But Mark's thread is excellent I think. I just don't think things will change here given the answer by CM on the recent Q and A thread.
But like you I am very curious as to why more people are not very concerned about this. And also why this is such a divisive issue. To me it's the most serious issue we face. And it's just science. But to many others (particularily in the US), it seems to be something else.
The Canadian activist/journalist Naomi Klein has been focused on this issue lately. Her writing has helped me to understand why this is such a divisive issue.
I recommend a piece she wrote in The Nation called Capitalism vs The Climate (sorry I didn't get a link). And she is also currently writing a book on this topic. J.
Mark,I'll accept your invitation to discuss this matter on the climate thread … as soon as someone can come up with workable proposals aiming toward a solution. I'm not interested in nattering. Climate change is a predicament that will be addressed individually. This is not the thread to discuss these matters unless any generation is more apt to deal with the problems that society faces.
Here are my posts on another climate related thread so you can see where I'm coming from:
https://peakprosperity.com/comment/117437#comment-117437
https://peakprosperity.com/comment/117560#comment-117560
https://peakprosperity.com/comment/124681#comment-124681
https://peakprosperity.com/comment/125108#comment-125108
https://peakprosperity.com/comment/125183#comment-125183
https://peakprosperity.com/comment/125240#comment-125240
Please send me a PM with links of credible solution(s). To all the climatologists, please don't hijack this thread.
Grover
Jan
Your words are well taken and appreciated. I've known my entire adult working life that SS was a ponzi sceme and I wasn't going to see a dime but it is making a significant differance in the life of my mother and many like her, so I considered it money well spent. I've thought myself prudent for taking a very long position in physical silver, I was brought up rather short then to find that there was a credible arguement for the idea that the human race might be wiped out before I have a chance to retire, much less spend my savings. Rather an abrupt reframing of prioritys. A Red Pill moment. Of course I'll continue to prep, if anything, the game just got alot more interesting. Trying to preserve my savings was a chore, surviving a Mass Extinction Event, game on!
Doug
Thanks for the link to the Climate Change Thread. I was aware of it, but up until now I hadn't thought it a priority. What a wonderful tumble down the rabbit hole!
Mark
Thank you for your patience and perserverance with what is obviously a very diverse readership. I have read and will continue to read your posts closely and with interest.
And so out to tend the garden in this remarkable weather ( I'm in south western Michigan, 100 degree heat index, 75 degree dew point ),a precurser of things to come?
John
Hi John,I think perhaps your response should have been to Joyce.
It is interesting how this thread has morphed. I was particulary taken with the dialogue around disability benefits. The anger at those underserving of benefits is palpable, and rightly so. I do find though that this line of thinking always mirrors the economic circumstances that we find ourselves in - when times are tough protectionism and discrimination become more evident. When the good times roll we don't hear too much about who is receiving benefits.
I see two kinds of "disabled": those who are gaming the system to receive benefits they are not entitled to; and those who are incapacitated in such a way that they genuinely need additional support from society. I have no problem with the latter. This is a moral obligation of a civilized society that values human rights. It is part of the price we have to pay for having those rights. The real problem lies with the former, that group of people who have no integrity and who think they deserve a free ride. But complicit in that are those who designed and run the system - if there is something to be exploited those who would exploit it will surely find a way to do so. It is too easy to scam the system, and we are right to be angry about it. I get especially angry as those who are in genuine need get lumped in with the scammers.
There is also another side of the coin with regard to disabled people in the workforce. There remains considerable barriers to success because of discriminatory attitudes. I have direct experience with this, and have battled with this over my entire career. There is a great deal of lip service paid to how right and proper it is to hire disabled people, but when it comes down to crunch time, all too often businesses do not come through. The excuse, especially for small businesses, is that it will have too much of an impact on the bottom line. The fear of the unknown causes more emphasis to be placed on the disability, rather than the ability. It is misguided thinking. Small business is the driver of our economic engines, yet there remain many who will not consider taking on a disabled person. Most disabled people want and need to be productive, contributing members of their communities. I have known accountants and lawyers who were long term unemployed because no one could get past seeing their disabilities. What a waste of a resource, doubly so because they end up collecting disability benefits. How un-necessary is that?!?
As with all generalizations a lot of good people get caught up with the tarring and feathering of those who are greedy and taking advantage of the system. Don't let that blind you to the many good and talented disabled people out there who want to take part in the game, but are not allowed to play.
Jan