Al Gore: 'The rich have subverted all reason'
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
BTW this article reminded me of a great show[1] that Last Week Tonight did, about how local news outlets in US are used to manipulate the masses.
The reality of the situation seems obvious to me, even if the edges are not clearly defined. I don't think it's very difficult to work out what is going on (with climate change etc.)
To me this is not about people getting access to good data, or being otherwise properly educated. It's about people identifying with "their group", and attacking the "others". And such battle lines are fought around various issues and language, and labels. But it's not actually about those issues or language or labels. It's about self and other. My people, and those other people. So this is what needs to be healed, this separative egoness.
Sadly the group that has changed in this formula is the left. They used to (ie, 30-40 years ago) spend a lot of focusing on eliminating and underplay difference between groups. Today I often see the modern left making fun of those times as naive experiment.
From what I can tell, in general the left of the US is constantly making an attempt to be all inclusive. I'd agree that there hasn't been enough work to help people see that they have common cause with people who look different and live in different places. That's really whats needed, but it's never been clear to me how to help someone who is severely bigoted to understand that their views are born of ignorance.
From what I can tell, the Right uses positions to drive wedges between people, such that someone can literally hate something which is clearly benefiting them personally because they have turned the issue into an Us vs Them argument. The only thing I see the Left consistently use as a wedge issue is class and money... Whereas the Right uses every possible thing they can come up with to convince people that follow them that they should all be afraid of what the Left is going to "take" from them.
An other example would be collage kids. 30-40 years ago we had the political debate around private gender segregated college vs communal gender mixed college. The argument was that by mixing genders people will be more inclusive and less rigid in their group thinking. In modern left politics we instead see a lot of talk about women only school as an effective way to protect women and get more women into professions that is dominated by men. The idea is that they society should include them by giving them an exclusive safe space.
On the topic of religions I can also see a similar change in theme. Old left were more atheism leaning (through possible less so in the US) and regarded what people did in private as private and not part of group identity. Modern left is more focused in giving each religion equal space and promoting the different groups that self-identify as belong to one. It consider it especially important that society give each group the unique consideration that they need/demand.
The general theme here is that the old left either explicit or indirectly downplayed self-identified groups (gender, religions, and sexual orientation) by simply welcoming in everyone to join in the greater common goal (mostly against money/power in some version or other), and the group that did get promoted was the left movement itself. The right during this time acted in direct opposite by highlighted the multiple "others" in order to strengthen the self-group. Both the old and modern left movement focus on inclusion, but its the method used here and the side effects of those that is in stark contrast between new and old.
If you think about how the economic system works, it will very quickly become obvious why this is the only way a leftist state can ever work : idea is that 2 things motivate people, one is richness and one is ideology. Since richness is taken away (that's the very goal of leftism), ideology is the one remaining. Given that, you cannot give freedom of ideology and expect something like communism to work. Even limited communism.
Assuming the goal of the left is still communism (even the ones of the "eventually" persuasion), I would still agree this is true, and therefore should have the "real" moniker.
In my opinion the "new left" has as a defining characteristic "globalism at any cost". The global free movement of people, and (because it's a necessity of movement of people) capital, and ideology is the central principle. This has somehow become what traditionally leftist parties stand for these days.
This is an extreme subversion of leftist thought, because, firstly, it is an extreme laissez-faire market idea, and should thus be classified as extreme-right. Secondly, it's self-destructive, as it allows the owners of means of production to use that movement of people, and especially to abuse it. Why ? To create ridiculous concentrations of wealth that are the very opposite of what leftism stands for. Needless to say, this abuse of people movement is happening on a large scale as a result. "Strongholds" of leftist thoughts (like the Bay Area and especially San Francisco) have become the main examples of what's wrong with capitalism, as gets frequently complained about on this very forum. And yet, most everyone from there professes to hold socialist ideals.
Even on a larger scale this is true. The republican party is currently about as left/right as the democrats (which is, I think, a large part of the reason for Trump's win), and democrats are moving to the right, republicans to the left. It's baffling to see, but every year requires more of a squint not to see it.
In these articles, one can sense a true disdain for many conservative points of view on topics like abortion, the role of religion in our society, and gun control. It is rare to find articles that I would feel comfortable sharing with conservative friends or family, as their tone is so contemptuous of conservatives. If it were not for the acerbic tone, many of these articles might become powerful tools of persuasion. But I guess it is just too much fun to taunt the "basket of deplorables."
To quote an article that nicely summarizes a Lincoln speech:
> When Abraham Lincoln was 33 years old, he gave a speech inside a Presbyterian church to a temperance society. His message: The assembled ought to be nicer to drinkers and sellers of alcohol, rather than shunning them, or denouncing them as moral pestilences. Indeed, they ought to use “kindly persuasion,” even if a man’s drunkenness had caused misery to his wife, or left his children hungry and naked with want.
> For people are never less likely to change, to convert to new ways of thinking or acting, than when it means joining the ranks of their denouncers.
> To expect otherwise, “to have expected them not to meet denunciation with denunciation ... and anathema with anathema, was to expect a reversal of human nature,” Lincoln explained.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/05/why-can...
I literally bloodied my head face-desking after the exchange...
Aren't these in fact lightning rod issues between conservatives and liberals in general?
The right for women to choose what to do with their bodies is generally a liberal sentiment. The right to be free of religions in every day life, again is a liberal (and constitutional) view. Gun control, is again a liberal desire (though probably not as stalwart as the others).
Why should liberals relax their views on these things? Liberals have relaxed on are some issues: economics, corporate policy, healthcare, etc.
[Written from an obvious US viewpoint.]
What people really want is for their group to beat other groups. It's always been that way, and always will.
This factionalization can occasionally be overcome by great leaders or external enemies. But now, with this 'party over country' attitude that we have, it'll can't be. Shame on us.
Maybe that came to be cause you cant discern anymore your pals on here as on the street where you see who he is by his looks.
There is even something that came a long time before IT and the resulting disinformation bubble:
Very unhealthy and materialistic values, deeply embedded in our current culture. I.e., we are constantly being told that being rich, being popular and to dominate others is a very desirable target.
On a global scale, I think that's a bad situation. On a family scale, being rich is close to the healthiest thing you can do.
I would say being self-reliant is the 'healthiest' thing you can do.
Being rich is a type of self-reliance, but it comes with its downsides. The biggest one is probably isolation. A disconnection from the world around you. Perhaps the world around you is 'unhealthy' so it makes some sense to be disconnected from it, but generally it's a downside.
Even basic human events like a childbirth: if everything goes well - great, if you get PPH - you've potentially got minutes before bleeding out.
2016 was the first Internet election and showed the power of "fake news" (disinformation flooding) and data driven micro-targeting in an election. Trump won partly because he ran an Internet election while Clinton ran a TV era election. (Obama had a good net game too, but 2008 and 2012 were still dominated by old media.)
The Democrats will close this gap, as will a trillion varied think tanks and pressure groups not to mention a dozen foreign governments. Combine this with the advent of AI chat bots and you have a recipe for social media apocalypse.
My specific prediction is that in 2020 mass social media will be flooded and basically DOS'd to death by automated propaganda bots and algorithmically generated fake news. Sites like Reddit will be nothing but donkeybots arguing with elephantbots. Less than half of online news will be even remotely true, especially on social media. Most will be algorithmically targeted and written propaganda.
It will be like the advent of mechanized warfare in WWI, but with bullshit. Mechanized bullshit warfare. Feel free to visualize.
Social platforms will implement censorship and other measures to attempt to fight this DOS attack but these will ruin them for humans and drive people away.
Basically mass social will die the way Usenet died, but with AI and driven by big big money propaganda efforts.
Internet discussion will retreat to private enclaves. We may see a second BBS era.
The signal to noise ratio around my kitchen table is a lot higher than on reddit (or even HN), and there are a lot fewer trolls.
We used to say "Never trust anyone you can't punch in the face."
Last Week Tonight is one of the most blatant examples of media-driven manipulation on the air today.
The right has always had its own junk - things like Fox News, various 'Think Tanks' and academic institutions who are quite blatant in their bias.
But in the last few years, at least, I've been amazed at just how obvious it is when the left pushes a narrative, regardless of whether it's a hit piece against Trump or any of a dozen other themes: immigration is needed, climate change will destroy us all, women are bullied in tech, etc.
The same exact story, from out of nowhere, is suddenly blaring at me via CNN at the airport and McDonalds, headlining a dozen different magazines at the grocery store checkout, editorials in all the major papers, jokes from three different late night comedians, surprisingly highly-voted articles on Reddit, hashtags on Twitter, a placement in a popular sitcom or movie...
His 2011 Google Tech Talk provides a condensed version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ik1AK56FtVc
The media is simply by definition vulnerable to manipulation. At some point you have to trust someone who tells you the truth. There are many ways to bend the truth.
What we need is strong ethics and a strong backing of them.
The entire point of the scientific method is to come to some common understanding of fact. What we need to demand is that articles are backed by properly run studies so that we can come to a common understanding based on good methods.
Yes, Al Gore believes that the current warming trend and climate change is man-made, so he will point to those things that support his theories and possibly downplay things that do not. This does not make him wrong.
No. I didn't even suggest some immediate action for the current situation. There is probably no way to fix it.
The scientific method cannot solve everything. Maybe it can prove global warming. But the human factor can still corrupt any facts established. That is why I said we need strong ethics. We need to accept the truth, even if it is inconvenient.
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/158159613566/how-to-convince-sk...
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/158778029326/how-to-change-my-b...
Just in case a preemptive post for all shills and otherwise identity-impaired deniers. Please watch this presentation from Sheffield University: https ://youtu.be/7IbyiOoVgnQ Thank you
That's the bigger question for me. I don't care if the planet is getting hotter or colder if biodiversity is being protected. Perhaps we should agree to stop driving species to extinction and let any decisions on climate be driven by that goal. Would you say that's a reasonable approach?
EDIT: Have watched the video. I can see you don't need convincing. Thanks for sharing it.
Here's the fixed video link, I'd recommend it to anyone who hasn't seen it:
Let's take Fake News. This is entirely a grass roots phenomenon. Sure there are individuals and groups behind a lot of it, but those individuals and groups are not heavily funded black ops teams of a billionaire conspiracy. They're sad white supremacist Reddit trolls. The fact that Trump blundered on to a wave of it and rode it to power is an accident, not the culmination of a choreographed master plan.
http://thedesk.matthewkeys.net/2013/12/heres-how-conan-obrie...
Sometimes I think that the focus on global warming is negative in that it is far easier for those that stand to lose from wider conciousness about environmental issues, i.e. the usual big business concerns, to counter a single topic than it would be for them to deny the general trend of ongoing worsening and destruction of our natural environment in general. The fact is that western lifestyles cannot be achieved by the whole population of the world without consequent massive pressure on resources. Rather than worrying ourselves solely about global warming I think we would do far better to start reducing consumption, reversing population growth to the point that the world's population starts to decline, and putting efficiency at the heart of humanity's scientific and business endeavours. The chances of this happening? I'd say pretty much zero, because modern capitalism preaches at the altar of inexorable GDP growth, and the rich and powerful aren't going to give up without a fight.
But I would prefer an argumentation that does not place the 'artificiality' of modern farming at the fulcrum as there is no 'natural' farming. All farming is artificial - an artifact of human culture. Farming is a thousands of years old biohack, of whose output we've improved over millenias. Using nitrogen fertilizer generated through Haber process to increase crop yelds is not in any way less 'natural' than manure.
Trace chemicals from e.g. pesticides that leak to all sorts of foodchains, including those where human partake - now, that's an issue.
It's also not very effective to speak of the general consumption of western lifestyle. We can't fix 'western lifestyle'. But, we can fix specific problems, one at a time. The problem needs some metric and the solution needs some predetermined metric to follow.
So, what's the first thing you would specifically fix?
Destruction of local habits for mono-culture crop development? Destroying complex ecosystems that are perfectly capable of supporting rich crops for humans and replacing them with mono-culture crops like soy/corn/sugarbeets that absolutely fuck the topsoil, deplete nutrients, and fail to support basically any animal life?
I'm not OP, but our current agricultural practices that came out of the world wars with cheap and easy access to "Chemicals" is absolutely a problem. Not because the chemicals are artificial (although that doesn't help with regards to price) but because we're using them in ways that don't create a renewing system. We're literally destroying our sources of water and topsoil to grow corn no one needs.
Fourth, I think we all have an idea of what constitutes western lifestyle, and thus I would say it is an effective term in communicating an idea. Are you really saying you have no idea what western lifestyle means?
Fifth, you ask me what I would specifically fix. I suspect that overall your tactic is to challenge aspects of my statements without refuting the central thrust of what I am saying, but whatever, I will engage. Specific problem: eutrophication due to high levels of fertiliser. How do we fix it? Drastic restriction of food production - there is a massive surfeit of food in most developed countries - and introduction of less destructive methods of agriculture. Why would this never be allowed to happen? Big business would take far too big a hit.
It's my understanding that at least in the US, crop rotation is required in order to earn farm subsidies. For example, near my parents there is a lot of corn grown, many fields will be left fallow for a year and then planted with soy to impart nitrogen into the soil.
I agree with your general sentiment, though.
This isn't going to get better as AI bots improve their ability to sound human and steer the conversation.
I'm kind of at a loss for a solution to this, aside from trusting only well-established media outlets, but that has its own drawbacks.
> “I mean that those with access to large amounts of money and raw power,” says Gore, “have been able to subvert all reason and fact in collective decision making”
In any case, it's clear that he's not talking about all the rich.
>“I mean that those with access to large amounts of money and raw power,” says Gore, “have been able to subvert all reason and fact in collective decision making. The Koch brothers are the largest funders of climate change denial. And ExxonMobil claims it has stopped, but it really hasn’t. It has given a quarter of a billion dollars in donations to climate denial groups. It’s clear they are trying to cripple our ability to respond to this existential threat.”
It's a common technique to split a quote like this to identify the speaker and while it's good to be skeptical you should be skeptical of all information, this particular form of quoting is no less and no more infallible to manipulation than the rest of English.
The parent's concern doesn't appear to be whether there was more quoted in the article, but whether the article elided part of the quote as it was originally given. You appear to recognize this in the second half of your comment, so I'm not sure why you conclude that the parent hasn't read the article.
Even if you've so concluded,
> Please don't insinuate that someone hasn't read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that."
As I read the comment in question, the concern was not whether the (article -> comment) reproduction was faithful, but about the original (speech -> article) reproduction. That's not an unreasonable question to carry some skepticism about in the general case, and it's not something that checking the article can answer.
I agree that the cited reason for increased skepticism in this case - the insertion of ", said ..., " - isn't actually cause for increased skepticism.
The truth is that we're all part of the problem, and all part of the solution. Rich people have a greater influence on the direction of the world than the poor, but only because we let them control the debate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_TV
And it isn't like Congress is poorly compensated. Currently Senators are paid $174,000 a year.
Of course, the power and fame is seductive, so paying below market rate makes a lot of sense.
[0] https://ballotpedia.org/Net_worth_of_United_States_Senators_...
I don't see how this makes him a fraud in the slightest.
Surprisingly, these are often the same people.
But what can we do?
For example, in French politics, there isn't a single person who proposes the right things against climate change. Melanchon comes to my mind, he has a half program against global warming but does hate speech against the 50% richer of the nation (and in France, that mean earning >2000€ pm). And that doesn't even guarantee getting the global warming solved... Macron won't solve much either, unless he digs in the debt, which isn't better for my children. Either way, we're stuck.
"I mean that those with access to large amounts of money and raw power,” says Gore, “have been able to subvert all reason and fact in collective decision making. The Koch brothers are the largest funders of climate change denial. And ExxonMobil claims it has stopped, but it really hasn’t. It has given a quarter of a billion dollars in donations to climate denial groups. It’s clear they are trying to cripple our ability to respond to this existential threat."
Gore (and Melonchon for that matter too) aren't referring to the "upper 50%", it's not even the 1% mantra of Occupy Wall St, it's an astoundingly small fraction that have this access to lobbying power and campaign funds.
Also, I'm startikng to get a bit disillusioned by the amount of guardian, nytimes, bbc, etc articles here.
I hope HN doesn't turn into reddit.
So, not impressed. Next!
But it does not make them necessarily wrong or worthless to others.
As in, if even a rich, educated, and passionate Al Gore cannot actually reduce his carbon footprint, is it even doable for India and China?
And even if he reduces his carbon footprint to nothing, all the does is shut him up and temporarily reduce carbon emissions insignificantly. It does nothing to curb industrial processes where the bulk of carbon emissions occur.
And you'll note that hypocrisy is not actually a logic fallacy. A war general has just as much reason to be listened to when he campaigns for peace as a pacifist; because peace stands on its own merit.
EDIT: This isn't even hypocrisy, though. Al Gore isn't asking each individual to fix their own carbon footprint. He's asking institutions to do so. And institutions can do things individuals cannot (due to networking and economic effects), as evidenced by that being the whole reason institutions are formed.
There are a lot of "Gulfstream liberals" that fly around the world in private jets while telling the 99% how they should live.
This isn't limited to Al Gore. Jamie Dimon (CEO of JP Morgan) quipped this about Davos: "It is where billionaires tell millionaires what the middle class feels."
It seems his other activities have been more beneficial though, he made a lot of money selling Current TV and also lots of money sitting on the board of Apple.