One point of our disagreement appears to be the extent of the problem that we face now.
I agree. I personally believe that most of the anti-Trump angst is a tempest in a teapot. We’ve gotten used to vanilla politicians giving us vanilla answers that are poll-tested before being spoken. We’ve never had a more “typical” American as President, somebody who is opinionated, eccentric, combative, and prone to colorful rhetoric. :-)
We have a completely dysfunctional political system recognized as such by many here and by other nations.
Again, I disagree. Our system is designed to go into stasis without compromise; and when the country is evenly split ideologically, compromise benefits no one. My view is that it’s working perfectly as designed. Now, we (and the world) may bemoan that fact, in that stasis benefits no one, but it is, indeed, the way the system is designed.
The problems that we are facing are at a planetary level and these are beginning to infringe on us. Climate disasters are steadily increasing.
Perhaps. The data I’ve seen shows increases in disasters to about 2006, and then holding relatively steady since.
The current scientific consensus is that action must be taken within the next three years to hold on to something close to the way of life that we have now. That puts a very clear timeline on this that means that allowing the current government to continue comes at a very high price.
Or any government, for that matter. The Paris Accords were designed to do, well…. not much in terms of climate change, in that the objectives were massively skewed in order to get all the developing nations onboard. I’m having trouble figuring out why everyone is so upset about us dropping out of an agreement that even the environmental groups had previously criticized as being virtually useless to address climate change.
More importantly, if the Paris Accords did nothing to address climate change, AND there was no other more effectual deal on the horizon (indeed, Accord proponents said at the time of signing that there “is no plan B”), AND the three year estimate is accurate……..then we were screwed, either way, Trump or Clinton or Sanders. It’s already too late. So, save your pennies and prepare to adapt, which is what Bjorn Lonborg was saying we needed to do a decade and a half ago.
So, let’s buck up and start building levees, bucko. I’ve stood on some of the ones in the Netherlands. Amazing. We tried for 20 years to come to agreement and failed. Now, let’s adapt.
At the more fundamental level the failure of both capitalism to deal with sustainability and the collapse of 18th and 19th century representative governmental models to meet human needs in the networked 21st century cannot wait any longer.
It so happens the Umair Haque wrote on this today also. He is more optimistic than I am as he gives the US five years. I give us three.
Well, if Medium’s penultimate pessimist, Haque, gives us five, then we ought to be good for a few decades. :-) But, let me leave you with some data from the Smartest Guys in the Room. This is the aggregated consensus of the guys who are ruined if your pessimism comes true, and the guys who, if you watch their “votes”, always seem to precede and thus predict, with those votes, an economic boom or disaster.
Here’s their votes since Trump’s election, both in the US, Europe, and the Developing World:
So, their votes. USA, up 15%; Europe, up 13%; Developing world, up 10%. That’s a historically significant amount of optimism.
Now, undoubtedly you would object. “Those are financiers”, you might say; “they are greedy! they think only of themselves and their profits!”
To which I would reply, “Precisely. That’s exactly why I trust them.”