The wealthy are different, now, more insulated, less concerned with anything outside their bubble. They have contingency plans, they've already bought their preferred hobbit-like safety valves. Whatever the catastrophe, they're confident they have a way out, for themselves.
They're not really giving any thought to billions of people. They don't need to, and don't feel morally obligated.
Mostly I don’t care what they own, but I do care that too often, it comes at a personal cost to someone else. I do care that those with the means might be so blinded by their wealth and possessions that they can never experience the deeply human joy of personally using some of their superfluous wealth to help improve the lives of people who are not so fortunate.
The lifestyles of every person in a first world country has been paid for at a personal cost to someone else. And yes, ditto the wealth disparity within developed countries.
It's not only everything in a Walmart store, it's IT, it's content safety on the web, it's everything we touch and do. Someone else got paid 25 cents an hour in a foreign country. To our personal benefit.
The irony of urging developing and third world countries to NOT use fossil fuels to improve their economies has never been lost on me. That lecture has been going on for decades.
Don't do what we do, don't have our standard of living, you'll ruin the planet!! And it would, too.
Our standard of living only exists by keeping billions of other people outside our highly developed bubble. Our consumption of resources does in fact mean someone else is missing out.
Yes, the poorest, both in first world and next tier countries will 100 percent suffer the effects of climate change hardest, and long before the better off start to feel any real pain.
You are so right, especially with the "insulated" and safety valve part. As long as the legislators we elect are ultra rich, why would anything change. And it takes trucks full of money to get elected, so the system perpetuates itself.
That's unique to America, in most countries, people who are not rich, or even unemployed, can end up in parliament, and it doesn't take millions of dollars, or even tens of thousands. No one in Australia ever drops out of an election because they run out of funds, because they don't need much. Our donation laws are different, and taxes pay for most of the spend if the person reaches a minimum first preference vote, even if they don't win the seat. (I'm not making this up!)
There are so many perversions in the American version of democracy, it's hard to pick a favorite.
The uber rich aren't reliant on other wealthy people being in politics, capitalism won a long time ago, at least in our countries, so the system for the rich is self sustaining and self perpetuating.
I've put forth a solution, but it hasn't gained much traction yet. Under my proposal. there would be a lottery to randomly select 10% of the members of the Senate and the House, as well as from the Cabinet members and executive level bureaucrats. politically appointed and career. On July 4 of each year, those selected in the lottery would be hanged on the Capital Mall. I estimate that it would take less than a decade to refocus the government back to We, The People.
Another marvelous American practice: politically appointed bureaucrats (and judges 😱🤦♀️). The antithesis of an impartial public service.
You think it would take ten years. Clearly you're accounting for a lot of slow learners. 🤣
How about Americans stop voting for elderly people? I don't even mean the president.
Or randomly select 10 percent of politicians from the general population, to replace the existing? And they can't sit for more than one term. A new set of random people would take their place after each election.
"Citizens United" was the last nail in the coffin for free and fair elections, though they've been dying for many years. I'm sure a large portion of Americans would be up for the system you've described in Australia where money isn't the main determinant of who can run. But the candidates with the backing of millionaires would never cave into a fairer playing field.
Apart from the stupifying dollars (what a shocking waste of money), the primaries process for selecting presidential candidates is bizarre and not democratic, and the alacrity with which America actively disenfranchises as many citizens as possible is shocking. Well into the 21sr century! (Didn't everyone win the right to vote sometime last century? 🤔)
Decades ago, I read that we in the US are 5% of the world's population and yet responsible for 20% of the world's consumption of resources. I'm sure that's only gotten worse as we consume and pollute with abandon. So tragic that those that are the most responsible for climate change are also the least likely to want to change and the most powerful/influential. A trifecta of destruction.
The wealthy are different, now, more insulated, less concerned with anything outside their bubble. They have contingency plans, they've already bought their preferred hobbit-like safety valves. Whatever the catastrophe, they're confident they have a way out, for themselves.
They're not really giving any thought to billions of people. They don't need to, and don't feel morally obligated.
They also have big airplanes with solarium swimming pools, and probably even bidets.
The uber rich have gigantic yachts and bolt holes in New Zealand.
Mostly I don’t care what they own, but I do care that too often, it comes at a personal cost to someone else. I do care that those with the means might be so blinded by their wealth and possessions that they can never experience the deeply human joy of personally using some of their superfluous wealth to help improve the lives of people who are not so fortunate.
The lifestyles of every person in a first world country has been paid for at a personal cost to someone else. And yes, ditto the wealth disparity within developed countries.
It's not only everything in a Walmart store, it's IT, it's content safety on the web, it's everything we touch and do. Someone else got paid 25 cents an hour in a foreign country. To our personal benefit.
And to add to that, what the poorest have paid already pales compared to what they will pay as the most common victims of climate disasters.
Oh yes, absolutely.
The irony of urging developing and third world countries to NOT use fossil fuels to improve their economies has never been lost on me. That lecture has been going on for decades.
Don't do what we do, don't have our standard of living, you'll ruin the planet!! And it would, too.
Our standard of living only exists by keeping billions of other people outside our highly developed bubble. Our consumption of resources does in fact mean someone else is missing out.
Yes, the poorest, both in first world and next tier countries will 100 percent suffer the effects of climate change hardest, and long before the better off start to feel any real pain.
With great blessings comes great responsibilities.
You are so right, especially with the "insulated" and safety valve part. As long as the legislators we elect are ultra rich, why would anything change. And it takes trucks full of money to get elected, so the system perpetuates itself.
That's unique to America, in most countries, people who are not rich, or even unemployed, can end up in parliament, and it doesn't take millions of dollars, or even tens of thousands. No one in Australia ever drops out of an election because they run out of funds, because they don't need much. Our donation laws are different, and taxes pay for most of the spend if the person reaches a minimum first preference vote, even if they don't win the seat. (I'm not making this up!)
There are so many perversions in the American version of democracy, it's hard to pick a favorite.
The uber rich aren't reliant on other wealthy people being in politics, capitalism won a long time ago, at least in our countries, so the system for the rich is self sustaining and self perpetuating.
I've put forth a solution, but it hasn't gained much traction yet. Under my proposal. there would be a lottery to randomly select 10% of the members of the Senate and the House, as well as from the Cabinet members and executive level bureaucrats. politically appointed and career. On July 4 of each year, those selected in the lottery would be hanged on the Capital Mall. I estimate that it would take less than a decade to refocus the government back to We, The People.
Another marvelous American practice: politically appointed bureaucrats (and judges 😱🤦♀️). The antithesis of an impartial public service.
You think it would take ten years. Clearly you're accounting for a lot of slow learners. 🤣
How about Americans stop voting for elderly people? I don't even mean the president.
Or randomly select 10 percent of politicians from the general population, to replace the existing? And they can't sit for more than one term. A new set of random people would take their place after each election.
It's an alternative to killing people.
"Citizens United" was the last nail in the coffin for free and fair elections, though they've been dying for many years. I'm sure a large portion of Americans would be up for the system you've described in Australia where money isn't the main determinant of who can run. But the candidates with the backing of millionaires would never cave into a fairer playing field.
Apart from the stupifying dollars (what a shocking waste of money), the primaries process for selecting presidential candidates is bizarre and not democratic, and the alacrity with which America actively disenfranchises as many citizens as possible is shocking. Well into the 21sr century! (Didn't everyone win the right to vote sometime last century? 🤔)
Still voting on a Tuesday. 🤣🤣🤣 Fix that!! 😁
Yes, it is a complicated mess, with the winners of the system rarely having any incentive to change it for the better.
Decades ago, I read that we in the US are 5% of the world's population and yet responsible for 20% of the world's consumption of resources. I'm sure that's only gotten worse as we consume and pollute with abandon. So tragic that those that are the most responsible for climate change are also the least likely to want to change and the most powerful/influential. A trifecta of destruction.
When are the pitchforks coming out?
We’re talking light sabres, young Luke.