leicsmac

It's a really difficult conundrum - how does a democratic government serve both the needs of the individuals who vote for it, but also the needs of everyone when needed? Parties have their use as blocs to act on behalf of groups, but it's hardly a perfect system, as you say. Thinkers since the time of ancient Greece have been struggling with that idea, and so far no one idea has been shown to be really anywhere near optimal. It's likely there is no one optimal idea - rather, only best choices based on situation that require adaptation and change where needed - something a lot of people struggle with, sadly.

Likely so, but I do think it's become more pronounced in recent times. It used to be the case that parties spent more time highlighting their own policy platform and deeds than attacking those of other parties. That seems to have become inverted recently. Of course, that's just my take.

Yeah, it's another US import - the idea of "vote for me because I'm not them". Thing is, that argument carries some weight, certainly over there and somewhat over here (if you consider the consequences of future policy decisions accurately) but it really can't stand alone as a platform - sooner rather than later people are going to want to see what you yourself are actually doing to make things better.

On topic, a man who made that hardest of challenges look like Louvre-worthy art:

A 300 bowling game doesn't seem to come up often (a cursory look reveals) and it relies on 12 perfect "shots", as darts relies on 9 and snooker requires 36. Obviously the relative "difficulty" of each shot is different, but when you look at it that way the 147 does look to be by far the most difficult to accomplish in terms of maintaining focus for the required number of shots to do it.

I would say the 147 as well, but then there might be others in other sports that haven't been thought of besides those three? (NB. I mentioned skill explicitly because if we're talking athletic sporting ability, it must be the Ironman Triathlon.)

Yeah, when it's broken down like that the result is obvious. On a similar topic, what do people reckon is the hardest single solo sporting achievement in terms of skill? Nine dart finish? 147 break? Hole in one? Something different?

And to add to the salient points made here, while the population growth slowdown and then stability as depicted here will cause problems, it's very likely the best possible option because all the others relying on constant growth will in all likelihood result in critical resource shortages and a rather nasty population crash.

I'm not sure it's as pressing an issue in the UK as it is in both Korea and Japan at the moment, but that's just an anecdotal thought on my part.

With this being a descriptor of the problem, anyone have any idea about what the solution is? Because we (as in humans) could do with one rather fast.

No disagreement with that assessment. The problem then becomes dealing with policymaking with a population that (through mostly no fault of their own) is open to manipulation in that way in a democratic framework where increasingly simple (and wrong) answers to complex problems are being floated and are popular. Answers on a postcard there.

And every arms dealer, no doubt. But their products serve one purpose alone. Hydrocarbon products, at the present time at least, serve several. And while I'm absolutely against using them for power generation because of the obvious reasons, I'm not so naive to think that society can abandon things like plastics just yet, or that the creation of such things does nearly as much damage (again, at the present time) as power generation when other better alternatives are readily available.

Well, this something exactly like the public relations department for the Galactic Empire would come up with tbf. "Peace through Strength for a safe and secure society..." It's such an obvious Kafka-trap and it's deeply annoying that a lot of people still fall for it. Being civil has gotten that part of society that actually cares about things beyond themselves and the next ten minutes to this stage. It seems reasonably obvious that it hasn't worked.

These things do tend to be a bit more complex than often portrayed, imo. That being said, I think this is a decent summation (would also include again that both Norway and the rest of the Scandics appear to have a much better grasp on wealth disparity and therefore quality of life than most other places), but now I'm curious about the motive for this criticism the first place. I think it's a valid point that even though Norway sells the stuff, the buyers don't have to use it for the purpose of power generation with all the associated trouble - and imo that's both a much greater sin and the responsibility of the buyer, not the seller, when other uses are available.

Every time he ended up in a spot, his talent came to the fore to dig him out. That's bottle in itself. Well done Yize.

Right, well when this discussion is ready to move beyond missing the point either through failure to communicate or straight up deliberately being disingenuous, I'll be about again.

Right to the wire.

Not what I meant by that question, selling oil for carbon emission results is the sole purpose of the system they have? In any case, this line of argument has absolutely zero to do with the fact that the way that the the way the Nordic and some East Asian countries are developing in terms of their energy tech may well be the only way to avoid future disaster. If people want to use some aspects of the "how" as a kind of gotcha to imply they're not examples to follow then fair enough - just be aware that it doesn't mean much in terms of the overall picture, particularly when no better examples are presented alongside.

And that's the sole purpose of the system they have? Put it this way, I don't disapprove of it as much as I disapprove of those who actively use it to condemn the future in the name of their own self interest. The people that buy it have the choice to not use the oil and gas that way.

Then perhaps you misunderstand. Oil is important as a material for manufacture for many things. What is not good, and what the essence of "drill baby drill" is, is using that oil and gas drilled for carbon emitting power generation that is causing and will cause consequences that will screw every single one of us. I hope that clarifies things.

Is the per capita statistic actually relevant in this case? Though tbh I'm surprised no one has made the specious argument yet that the Nordic countries are most happy because they're "ethnically homogeneous" or somesuch. The scale of wealth disparity between highest and lowest, is the important factor. NB. The Nordic or East Asian model of development, however it is accomplished, may well be the only way forward that doesn't become grossly horrible. People in the UK and otherwise should perhaps consider accordingly.

And, pardon for coming back to a point made many times already, but combine that susceptibility to misinformation that appeals to self interest with democratic influence on policymaking on critical future issues... Well, that doesn't end well for anyone.

Hopefully a late night grandstand finish to come.

It's a soundbite where it infers that if you vote a particular way, you get an "undesirable", "inferior" (again, not stated directly but inferred) bloc of people who all have the same moral values (or lack thereof) in "your" community. Not so much of a leap IMO. Yes. And look how far our species has come along (or not) when over 60 years later apparently demonising a bloc of people still is a viable political strategy that is attempted.

More on this from Nate's Liver: https://www.natesilver.net/p/trump-approval-ratings-nate-silver-bulletin In short, yes, crash and burn. Hopefully the midterm results will be reflective of it. Wrong vowel, second letter.