Languish.org

So its been quite a year....
So many norms being broken and general fucked upness around.
Is this the new normal and its all down hill from here?
Or can good times be in the future?

I think we may be the closest we have ever been. Sure the Cuban Missile Crisis was pretty close and there were other crises but it feels like those were part of a "game" largely understood and more importantly adhered to by all the major participants.

We do not have that now. The two nuclear superpowers are both led by fascist cleptocracies, with America in particular run by a demented fool. Sure Putin is probably also falling apart slowly but he has a grasp of world politics.

And, not unconnectedly, we are seeing the rapid melting away of the old post-ww2 order. At one hand Russia has been proven to be an absolute paper tiger with "only" their massive nuclear arsenal keeping them at the big boys' table. On the other hand America has lost all willingness and thanks to Trump, ability, to act as a stabilising force while being very happy to be the opposite.

All this seems far more chaotic toe than the cold war era ever was, although I appreciate I am looking back at the latter in hindsight.

I think things spiralling out of control into a global armageddon is a reasonable scenario. Unlikely, but entirely possible.

I wouldn't rule it out personally. The 2nd verse of Abba's Happy New Year certainly feels more relevant than ever given the current world situation.

Wasn't it Erich Kästner who wrote at new year's 31/32 (from memory, so cut me some slack)

Wird's besser? Wird's schlimmer?
Fragt man alljährlich
Seien wir ehrlich
Leben ist immer lebensgefärlich

Yes, we are now at or over 1.5C of warming.

We are definitely in the mitigation phase of global warming.

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 31, 2025, 10:46:22 AMYes, we are now at or over 1.5C of warming.

We are definitely in the mitigation phase of global warming.

We should be.
The way things are looking at the moment seems far more we are in the "there's nothing we can do anyway. Who cares. We've more important things to do" stage.

Quote from: Josquius on December 31, 2025, 11:01:13 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 31, 2025, 10:46:22 AMYes, we are now at or over 1.5C of warming.

We are definitely in the mitigation phase of global warming.

We should be.
The way things are looking at the moment seems far more we are in the "there's nothing we can do anyway. Who cares. We've more important things to do" stage.

Depends who is we.  The Americans are definitely in don't look up mode.

Yes, no and maybe :lol: I don't know and I think it probably depends where you're looking at it from.

I think the framing is interesting becuse there was an extraordinary article by Peter Thiel in the FT for Trump's inauguration. The reason it was so extraordinary - and right to publish - was how unhinged it was. But the whole framing of it was around apocalypse. As you'd expect from a fan of Girard, Thiel was using its original meaning as an unveiling, a moment of revelation when what is true but obscure is clear. It was, needless to say, something Thiel looked forward to with glee. As mad as his article was I think there is something interesting in that additional meaning of the apocalyptic.

My immediate thought though is the Gramsci line is right. It's not apocalypse it's that we're between regimes, in the interregnum - "the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum morbid phenomena of the most varied kind come to pass." It's become a cliche and I think there are problems with using that to interpret the current moment. But I do think we are in a period of interregnum where an order is dying but a new one has not yet been created. More diagramatically Arrighi has his list of regimes and interregnums - so the regime based on British power ends with the First World War, but is not replaced by the post-war order until 1945. That period lasts until the crises of the 70s and is replaced by the neo-liberal order which, on his measure, ended with the collapse (and rise/return of Asia). I think we are still in that middle phase - and the key point as I think on every single issue is China particularly and Asia more generally. Whether it's climate, the economy, politics, culture whatever - if that's not at least half the story we're telling, or picture we're interpreting then we are missing what's happening for parochial navel-gazing.

Having said all that I do think about the Keynes passage about pre-WW1 Europe because I do suspect - especially for Europeans - we'll be explaining to future generations what the 90s and 00s was like in a similar way:

QuoteWhat an extraordinary episode in the economic progress of man that age was which came to an end in August, 1914! The greater part of the population, it is true, worked hard and lived at a low standard of comfort, yet were, to all appearances, reasonably contented with this lot. But escape was possible, for any man of capacity or character at all exceeding the average, into the middle and upper classes, for whom life offered, at a low cost and with the least trouble, conveniences, comforts, and amenities beyond the compass of the richest and most powerful monarchs of other ages. The inhabitant of London could order by telephone, sipping his morning tea in bed, the various products of the whole earth, in such quantity as he might see fit, and reasonably expect their early delivery upon his doorstep; he could at the same moment and by the same means adventure his wealth in the natural resources and new enterprises of any quarter of the world, and share, without exertion or even trouble, in their prospective fruits and advantages; or he could decide to couple the security of his fortunes with the good faith of the townspeople of any substantial municipality in any continent that fancy or information might recommend. He could secure forthwith, if he wished it, cheap and comfortable means of transit to any country or climate without passport or other formality, could despatch his servant to the neighboring office of a bank for such supply of the precious metals as might seem convenient, and could then proceed abroad to foreign quarters, without knowledge of their religion, language, or customs, bearing coined wealth upon his person, and would consider himself greatly aggrieved and much surprised at the least interference. But, most important of all, he regarded this state of affairs as normal, certain, and permanent, except in the direction of further improvement, and any deviation from it as aberrant, scandalous, and avoidable. The projects and politics of militarism and imperialism, of racial and cultural rivalries, of monopolies, restrictions, and exclusion, which were to play the serpent to this paradise, were little more than the amusements of his daily newspaper, and appeared to exercise almost no influence at all on the ordinary course of social and economic life, the internationalization of which was nearly complete in practice.

Again I think the key forces here are globalisation and the rise of Asia. But I think part of the consequences of that, especially with Trump, is that there is going to be a decoupling of Europe and America. Which will be transformative and I think is already relevant in how Europe orients itself towards Russia and China as I think we're moving back to Eurasia after a few hundred years of a Euro-Atlantic with the Americas as European hinterland, then s shaed Atlantic, to Europe as an American frontier. Again I think it maybe feels like apocalypse if you're in - and a believer in - that Euro-Atlantic, but possibly not if you're from, say, China or India within living memory of profound absolute rural immiseration and seeing vistas and possibilities opening that were impossible to imagine a generation ago. Again I think for a lot of the world the "rules based liberal order" is not something to mourn because it never looked rules based, liberal, or orderly for them.

On nukes I've always had a base layer of anxiety about this - I'm always surprised that people don't share because it seems to me almost incredible that we've had the capacity to destroy ourselves for 80 years and so far haven't. I think the risk is far lower than it was during the Cold War but I still find it strange that people don't worry more about them.

I don't fear a nuclear armageddon from Trump/Putin...I think both are eager to avoid MAD.  Same from any of Trump's potential successors...all of them are likely to just bend over while stealing from the local monetary sources.  On the Russian side I am less sure...it feels like most of the public/media-facing Russian demagogues speak in apocalyptic tones worthy of the worst religious zealots (the line of "what good is the world if Russia is not in it" while talking casually of using nuclear weapons...).  It may be likely that whomever takes over after Putin will just be some similar grey figure with the necessary hold over the state security apparatus...but that is a big unknown as seen from here.

Meanwhile, China is not likely to just chill on Taiwan forever...but I suspect that if push came to shove, we'd just let them try and take it, and just muddle through any resulting consequences.

Quote from: Tonitrus on December 31, 2025, 02:28:55 PMI don't fear a nuclear armageddon from Trump/Putin...I think both are eager to avoid MAD.  Same from any of Trump's potential successors...all of them are likely to just bend over while stealing from the local monetary sources.  On the Russian side I am less sure...it feels like most of the public/media-facing Russian demagogues speak in apocalyptic tones worthy of the worst religious zealots (the line of "what good is the world if Russia is not in it" while talking casually of using nuclear weapons...).  It may be likely that whomever takes over after Putin will just be some similar grey figure with the necessary hold over the state security apparatus...but that is a big unknown as seen from here.

Meanwhile, China is not likely to just chill on Taiwan forever...but I suspect that if push came to shove, we'd just let them try and take it, and just muddle through any resulting consequences.

The danger doesn't come only from intentions, it also comes from dynamics that inherently can't be 100% predictable.  Sometimes events happen to play out even when everyone understands it's to everyone's collective detriment.  If a nuclear exchange does happen at some point, it would most likely be due to a brinkmanship gone wrong.

That said, we've been living with this fear for decades, so it's old hat at this point.  The new fear I have is that the world is locked on a course to become ever more centralized, and AI will unlock plenty of new ways of ensuring that any challenge to central authority gets identified and contained earlier than ever.  The entrenchment of central authority will lead a world that is very brittle, much like a forest that was never allowed to have brush fires.

Nobody's brought up AI, either. I really don't think we can underestimate the potential danger of this.

[edit] Yes, I know there's an entire thread about it.

Quote from: Josephus on December 31, 2025, 03:01:36 PMNobody's brought up AI, either. I really don't think we can underestimate the potential danger of this.

[edit] Yes, I know there's an entire thread about it.

I did bring up AI in my post, and I'm scared of it for many reasons.  I think people get so caught up about measuring ChatGPT's IQ that they don't think about the scalability of knowledge aspect, and how dangerous it can be all on its own. 

When you have access to a whole world of knowledge, including private knowledge that's generally not of interest to more than a few people, you don't need to be a genius to connect the dots.  Most dots in the world don't get connected not because people are too dumb to connect them, but because they don't have them in the first place due to human limits.  Our privacy and agency relies on a lot of dots staying unconnected that an AI will connect to our detriment, intentionally or not.

AI is a worry yeah.
LLMs are clearly heavily marketing. They're not capable of half as much as is presented.
But even before the current "AI" fuss data was a big thing. Totally agreed about having the raw processing power to piece everything together being a concern.
I can't help but find the big data centre (probably) being built at the white house very worrying.

Though I do admit there is a tinfoil hat part of me going "this is the stuff they let the public know about. Theres some much worse stuff they just aren't telling us"... But then I remember what trump is like and he absolutely would blah about that.

QuoteAgain I think the key forces here are globalisation and the rise of Asia. But I think part of the consequences of that, especially with Trump, is that there is going to be a decoupling of Europe and America. Which will be transformative and I think is already relevant in how Europe orients itself towards Russia and China as I think we're moving back to Eurasia after a few hundred years of a Euro-Atlantic with the Americas as European hinterland, then s shaed Atlantic, to Europe as an American frontier. Again I think it maybe feels like apocalypse if you're in - and a believer in - that Euro-Atlantic, but possibly not if you're from, say, China or India within living memory of profound absolute rural immiseration and seeing vistas and possibilities opening that were impossible to imagine a generation ago. Again I think for a lot of the world the "rules based liberal order" is not something to mourn because it never looked rules based, liberal, or orderly for them

I would say though that even from an Indian or Chinese perspective things are looking very dodgy indeed.
India is really being destroyed by homegrown fascists and China has been backsliding for some time.
Oh sure, when you remember actual food shortages and other such mega poverty then you can forgive a bit of fascism if it gives you an ok quality of life.
But that's not a good thing. Not a sustainable thing.

Quote from: Josquius on December 31, 2025, 05:57:14 PMI would say though that even from an Indian or Chinese perspective things are looking very dodgy indeed.
India is really being destroyed by homegrown fascists and China has been backsliding for some time.
Oh sure, when you remember actual food shortages and other such mega poverty then you can forgive a bit of fascism if it gives you an ok quality of life.
But that's not a good thing. Not a sustainable thing.

When we were born there were almost two billion people in extreme poverty. It's now below a billion. That was driven overwhelmingly by China and India. China alone has gone from 90% of people on less than $3 a day when we were born to eliminating extreme poverty, India's less extreme but gone from about 50% to 5%.

I think that is the sort of world historical event of my lifetime - the rest is noise. It's a profound transformation of the lives of hundreds of millions of people and driven by development that is more explosive than the industrial revolution - and, in China, driving the energy transition globally (the number one question on energy is whether India is able to skip the carbon intensive energy stage China had or not - if they can't, then we're all fucked).

And in terms of how that matters in Europe, I've mentioned it before because I find it so interesting. Italy's the most extreme example but it's true across Europe (and I suspect the wider "West"). I can't find the exact stat but when we were born the poorest quintile of Italians were around the 75th percentile globally. At the point covid hit they were about 50th percentile. They're now probably in the bottom half. That's not because they've got poorer in real terms as they haven't. It's the emergence of a new global middle class driven by the rise of Asia - and in part a lot of the disruption we face is the shift in the global middle class and who is in/out of it and subsequntly what people can afford. I think a lot of what we're seeing and interpretingas a local phenomenon is ultimately just a consequence flowing from the end of the Atlantic-centred world, which I think was a temporary aberration in any event.

Temporary is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. It's been 5 centuries.

Since the Greeks  defeated Persia at Salamis. That's a 2,600 year run. Or so.

Until the age of sail everyone* was at most a local power. Some with greater power than others, but local just the same. Weird to see it as a swing back to china being the centre when China wasn't ever the centre, no more then Rome was.But we all know sheilbh's proclivities :P


*except the mongols, I guess. But they're the exception to every rule :lol:

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 01, 2026, 03:11:34 AMSince the Greeks  defeated Persia at Salamis. That's a 2,600 year run. Or so.

He said Atlantic, not European.

Not something where there's one correct answer. As how do you define it. But in my boom world leader was
???  till mid first millennium BC -  Middle East.
Mid first millennium BC till mid first millennium AD - Europe.
600ish  to 1700ish - China
1700ish till WW2- Europe
WW2 till???? - America

Quote from: Sheilbh on December 31, 2025, 06:43:14 PM

Quote from: Josquius on December 31, 2025, 05:57:14 PMI would say though that even from an Indian or Chinese perspective things are looking very dodgy indeed.
India is really being destroyed by homegrown fascists and China has been backsliding for some time.
Oh sure, when you remember actual food shortages and other such mega poverty then you can forgive a bit of fascism if it gives you an ok quality of life.
But that's not a good thing. Not a sustainable thing.

When we were born there were almost two billion people in extreme poverty. It's now below a billion. That was driven overwhelmingly by China and India. China alone has gone from 90% of people on less than $3 a day when we were born to eliminating extreme poverty, India's less extreme but gone from about 50% to 5%.

I think that is the sort of world historical event of my lifetime - the rest is noise. It's a profound transformation of the lives of hundreds of millions of people and driven by development that is more explosive than the industrial revolution - and, in China, driving the energy transition globally (the number one question on energy is whether India is able to skip the carbon intensive energy stage China had or not - if they can't, then we're all fucked).

And in terms of how that matters in Europe, I've mentioned it before because I find it so interesting. Italy's the most extreme example but it's true across Europe (and I suspect the wider "West"). I can't find the exact stat but when we were born the poorest quintile of Italians were around the 75th percentile globally. At the point covid hit they were about 50th percentile. They're now probably in the bottom half. That's not because they've got poorer in real terms as they haven't. It's the emergence of a new global middle class driven by the rise of Asia - and in part a lot of the disruption we face is the shift in the global middle class and who is in/out of it and subsequntly what people can afford. I think a lot of what we're seeing and interpretingas a local phenomenon is ultimately just a consequence flowing from the end of the Atlantic-centred world, which I think was a temporary aberration in any event.

I don't doubt qualify of life has improved a lot in those countries and that is a good thing.
What concerns me about them is their slide into fascism.
This happening in one country is bad enough.
But happening everywhere.... Real 1984 level potential.

Quote from: Zoupa on January 01, 2026, 03:21:46 AMHe said Atlantic, not European.

And Europe is part of the Atlantic ascendancy.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 01, 2026, 03:25:34 AM

Quote from: Zoupa on January 01, 2026, 03:21:46 AMHe said Atlantic, not European.

And Europe is part of the Atlantic ascendancy.

You can't say it's been 2600 years of Atlantic ascendancy because some Greeks beat some Persians all those years ago. Europe was a backwater until the Renaissance.

I mean the whole reason for this forum's existence is because of Europa Universalis. The game starts in the 15th century.

Quote from: Zoupa on January 01, 2026, 03:36:23 AMYou can't say it's been 2600 years of Atlantic ascendancy because some Greeks beat some Persians all those years ago. Europe was a backwater until the Renaissance.

Sure I can. Macedonia dominated Asia all the way to India. Rome dominated about the same exent. Then it ebbed with the Arabs and Ottomans, then nothing but from there.

That was a thousand+ years where Europe ebbed whilst China was really on the rise.
And it was less than a thousand years from Alexander through to the fall of Rome.

The real question is: are we in a comedy, or a tragedy?

Quote from: Tonitrus on January 01, 2026, 04:53:48 AMThe real question is: are we in a comedy, or a tragedy?

A farce

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 01, 2026, 03:46:09 AM

Quote from: Zoupa on January 01, 2026, 03:36:23 AMYou can't say it's been 2600 years of Atlantic ascendancy because some Greeks beat some Persians all those years ago. Europe was a backwater until the Renaissance.

Sure I can. Macedonia dominated Asia all the way to India. Rome dominated about the same exent. Then it ebbed with the Arabs and Ottomans, then nothing but from there.

While I disagree with your characterization, my main quibble is about geography. The age of discovery is what started the Atlantic era, which implies both sides of the ocean being involved.

I think we need a comet to just end the misery.  Save global warming; mega plagues; and political unrest the trouble.

Quote from: Zoupa on January 01, 2026, 12:24:08 AMTemporary is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. It's been 5 centuries.

:lol: Fair :blush:

But I think in part I'd put it like that because I think that is an/the epochal shift that's happening right now and is driving a lot of the other disruption as change. The post Cold War settlement was always likely to be temporary and it has lasted about 20-30 years depending on your view. Its ending is being experienced I think in some areas (I think particularly for the leadership class) as quite a wrenching shift and almost a trauma. I think part of that is possibly because it hints at this wider, far bigger shift. I think there's a degree of averting our eyes from that big change to focus on, to nick MacMillan's phrase, "little local difficulties".

FWIW I wasn't really thinking of "world leader" stuff but the orientation of Europe so I totally agree wiht you. Power is absolutely part of that. But I'd argue that basically until the 18th century Europe was Eurasian. It was oriented to the Medterranean and the Near East with an Atlantic fringe. From the 18th century to the current point I think we've been primarily oriented to the Atlantic with an accompanying marginalisation/peripherisation of the Med and South East Europe. I think that era is over. I don't think we'll all suddenly ping back, it'll be a process - and my suspicion is Europe may actually end up splitting between those still oriented around the Atlantic and those looking more to Eurasia. I also slightly suspect that the states that basically arbitrage/connect Europe with those wider networks may be ones that do quite well. For example, like Hungary and Turkiye.

On the "world leader" point thought it's not totally what I meant I do think there'll be a jarring experience for Europe as we are peripherised. In my view we've already been since 1990 a priileged periphery of American power, but as I say I suspect we'll divide but I think in both cases Europe will become more and more clearly the periphery (as it historically was - to the "world leader" thing - for much of its history) rather than the core. With all the symptoms that produces and that we've anatomised in other societies. I suspect we are at the start of a period that will de-centre Europe quite radically.

QuoteI don't doubt qualify of life has improved a lot in those countries and that is a good thing.
What concerns me about them is their slide into fascism.
This happening in one country is bad enough.
But happening everywhere.... Real 1984 level potential.

Sure - that concerns you.

My point was that it's a question of perspective. I ultimately think the perspective that we're in the intro of a post-apocalyptic movie is one that's basically quite limited. I suspect from Africa it looks very much like BAU, from India and China and Asia more generally I think there are reasons for optimism for many.

I think this is even the case on climate. The signs are thre that China's fossil fuel use has peaked (it fell this year). Over three quarters of the world's clean energy patent applications are from China. 25% of emerging markets are now ahead of the US on electrification (end use) and solar generation - overwhelmingly driven by cheap "overproduced" Chinese poducts. And China's solar manufacturing capacity in 2025 was 65% ahead of where it needed to be by 2030 to meet the IEA's Net Zero Roadmap. As I say the key question is whether India grows as China did with a heavy, dirty phase (in which case we're all screwed) or if they can jump straight to where China are now (possibly using their tech) and grow through renewables. The linking of climate and the lifting of hundreds of millions out of poverty is the great challenge we have.

If your frame is Europe unwinding climate commitments or Trump then things look bad. I think if you look more widely then the picture's actually better than anticipated at this stage (the biggest polluter peaking earlier, manufacturing more than expected for less and being able to export that tech and knowledge). Of course the state doing that is one that is revisionist, aggressive, oppressive and damanging to Western interests. But I think we have to kind of hold both of those ideas together or at least in tension.

Too bad we can't ignore the US impact on climate change.

It's less than half China's and has been consistently falling for twenty years. It's two thirds of its peak which was about 2005. The signs are that is accelerating and a significant part of that is because of Chinese tech and manufacturing increasing the roll-out of solar. China's making energy transition possible at scale and cheap.

Also to be kind of blunt the laggard in the G7 is Canada :P The UK, France and Germany all peaked in the 70s. Italy peaked around 2005 (like the US and Japan) and all of those countries have been on strong downward trajectories since then (some from a higher starting point than others). For example just to look at the last twenty years as I say the US has cut emissions to about two thirds of 2005, so has Germany and France, Japan's at about three quarters of where it was and Italy and the UK are at or below 60% of 2005 levels. Canada is still at between 90-95% of 2005 emissions.

But the bigger point is in that period China's emissions more than doubled - it is currently emitting more than the entire OECD. So, yeah, I think focusing there is important - and there are big positive signs.

Edit: Again I think this is the de-centring to an extent. On climate - which I think is a canary in the coal mine to an extent - the most important decisions for the planet will be from Beijing and Delhi, not Brussels and DC. It's the first issue where that's really clear but it won't be the last.

Quote from: Zoupa on January 01, 2026, 12:24:08 AMTemporary is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. It's been 5 centuries.

Global manufacturing was concentrated in China and India until the late 18th century.  So the ascendancy of the world between California and the Elbe runs from about 1750-2010.  Not an insignificant period, but in the context of millennia, a couple hundred years or so can still fairly be called temporary and anomalous.

QuoteSure - that concerns you.

My point was that it's a question of perspective. I ultimately think the perspective that we're in the intro of a post-apocalyptic movie is one that's basically quite limited. I suspect from Africa it looks very much like BAU, from India and China and Asia more generally I think there are reasons for optimism for many.

A lot of Indians too it's worth noting.
And Chinese though not many of them in China for some mysterious reason.

I do get your point that when having food on the table was a concern in the recent past a lot of people will be focussed on the here and now and what's best for them.
The whole Putin deal of selling rights for prosperity and security.

But I don't think it's good to lean too far in this  "anti imperialist" direction.
Looking at the big picture global trends are not great this past decade.
And not at all thinking about what is best for me /Britain  here but humanity overall (in which I do think there's a huge overlap in a lot of things except the very particular stuff about me becoming a little bit rich)

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 01, 2026, 12:08:08 PMToo bad we can't ignore the US impact on climate change.

I saw an article the that claimed that more than 90% of the US' new energy capacity in 2025 was renewable, in spite of Trump's efforts.

Quote from: Josquius on January 01, 2026, 01:02:52 PMBut I don't think it's good to lean too far in this  "anti imperialist" direction.
Looking at the big picture global trends are not great this past decade.
And not at all thinking about what is best for me /Britain  here but humanity overall (in which I do think there's a huge overlap in a lot of things except the very particular stuff about me becoming a little bit rich)

I've said before but on a lot of stuff I am basically an old school Third Worldist :ph34r: (Edit: I went on holiday to Indonesia and literally visited Bandung to see the museum of the Bandung Conference and was, weirdly, interviewed by Japanese journalists who were there because it was the 70th anniversary :ph34r:) But I take your point and I'm not necessarily celebrating this or saying that what's coming is better. I'm saying that the perspective from Europe is of an ending (which I think is happening) and of threat - but I don't think that's the sense everywhere.

But in terms of apocalypse I think do fundamentally fall on the line that it's not apocalypse it's regime change, it's a period of transition which is inevitably destabilising. Part of mourning the loss should also be that we're clear eyed about the iniquities it was built on as that allows us to have a way of approaching the new. I think the big failure of our system was that it was a closed shop - with the unique exception of post-Communist Europe - we never had a development model that could help the poor or the rest of the world and we never democratised power in the institutions we built to manage the world order. It was always 1990 (at best) which in turn reflected the flaws of the previous order (such as Europe's privileged position).

Although FWIW if I was to go full Copernicus (please don't quote this at me in the future :ph34r:) I actually think the era we're heading into will be one of a fusion of state and corporate power. In some areas, I think that will proceed through the dismantling of state power and subjugation of political power to the economy and corporate interests (who are delivering the objectives of the "state" in its place). In other areas I think it'll take the form of a minimal state delivering needs to a level necessary to maintain some popular consent, accompanied with looting by political-corporate elites. I think in others, primarily the Communist party states like China, there will still be a mid-20th century vision of the state and political power which will subjugate corporate power to political ends but that the top ends of all three will be exceptionally blurred.

My hope is, as ever, popular sovereignty and the assertion of the supremacy of politics (Edit: and building state capacity) - but I'm not sure I see much sign of it happening.

Quote from: DGuller on December 31, 2025, 02:54:08 PM

Quote from: Tonitrus on December 31, 2025, 02:28:55 PMI don't fear a nuclear armageddon from Trump/Putin...I think both are eager to avoid MAD.  Same from any of Trump's potential successors...all of them are likely to just bend over while stealing from the local monetary sources.  On the Russian side I am less sure...it feels like most of the public/media-facing Russian demagogues speak in apocalyptic tones worthy of the worst religious zealots (the line of "what good is the world if Russia is not in it" while talking casually of using nuclear weapons...).  It may be likely that whomever takes over after Putin will just be some similar grey figure with the necessary hold over the state security apparatus...but that is a big unknown as seen from here.

Meanwhile, China is not likely to just chill on Taiwan forever...but I suspect that if push came to shove, we'd just let them try and take it, and just muddle through any resulting consequences.

The danger doesn't come only from intentions, it also comes from dynamics that inherently can't be 100% predictable.  Sometimes events happen to play out even when everyone understands it's to everyone's collective detriment.  If a nuclear exchange does happen at some point, it would most likely be due to a brinkmanship gone wrong.

That said, we've been living with this fear for decades, so it's old hat at this point.  The new fear I have is that the world is locked on a course to become ever more centralized, and AI will unlock plenty of new ways of ensuring that any challenge to central authority gets identified and contained earlier than ever.  The entrenchment of central authority will lead a world that is very brittle, much like a forest that was never allowed to have brush fires.

Yeah I 100% agree with you on this. Just imagine the East German security state with modern tech. You wouldn't be able to piss without the government knowing when and where and how often.

Quote from: HVC on January 01, 2026, 03:16:14 AM*except the mongols, I guess. But they're the exception to every rule :lol:

(https://i.makeagif.com/media/1-05-2017/hWOY2_.gif)

Quote from: Valmy on January 02, 2026, 12:12:54 AM

Quote from: DGuller on December 31, 2025, 02:54:08 PM

Quote from: Tonitrus on December 31, 2025, 02:28:55 PMI don't fear a nuclear armageddon from Trump/Putin...I think both are eager to avoid MAD.  Same from any of Trump's potential successors...all of them are likely to just bend over while stealing from the local monetary sources.  On the Russian side I am less sure...it feels like most of the public/media-facing Russian demagogues speak in apocalyptic tones worthy of the worst religious zealots (the line of "what good is the world if Russia is not in it" while talking casually of using nuclear weapons...).  It may be likely that whomever takes over after Putin will just be some similar grey figure with the necessary hold over the state security apparatus...but that is a big unknown as seen from here.

Meanwhile, China is not likely to just chill on Taiwan forever...but I suspect that if push came to shove, we'd just let them try and take it, and just muddle through any resulting consequences.

The danger doesn't come only from intentions, it also comes from dynamics that inherently can't be 100% predictable.  Sometimes events happen to play out even when everyone understands it's to everyone's collective detriment.  If a nuclear exchange does happen at some point, it would most likely be due to a brinkmanship gone wrong.

That said, we've been living with this fear for decades, so it's old hat at this point.  The new fear I have is that the world is locked on a course to become ever more centralized, and AI will unlock plenty of new ways of ensuring that any challenge to central authority gets identified and contained earlier than ever.  The entrenchment of central authority will lead a world that is very brittle, much like a forest that was never allowed to have brush fires.

Yeah I 100% agree with you on this. Just imagine the East German security state with modern tech. You wouldn't be able to piss without the government knowing when and where and how often.

This is concerning. Everyone going fascist at once with technology and trapping us in some horrid global 1984.
I also see concern in continued development of patterns we've had the past decade or two though.
Shit like brexit with priming ideas in people's minds over time then targeting them with ads based on things that will appeal to them. And in this way manipulate for outcomes that are against the best interest of these people.

It often gets over stated just how clever this was in 2016....but with AI and systems that know every single detail about you and actually can target just you?

There's plenty of more explainable surface reasons for trump winning again (depressing ones) but again a tinfoil hat theory could be around how this is all about making sure the worst people are in charge at a key moment in tech development.
I don't rationally believe in this "LLMs give us AGI in 2026!!" talk at all. But I cant dismiss it completely as there's so much I don't know of what is happening behind the scenes, stuff like deep seek shows surprises happen etc....
And if AGI were to come about we really don't want it at this moment. .

Quote from: Jacob on January 01, 2026, 01:04:49 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 01, 2026, 12:08:08 PMToo bad we can't ignore the US impact on climate change.

I saw an article the that claimed that more than 90% of the US' new energy capacity in 2025 was renewable, in spite of Trump's efforts.

To be able to understand whether that statistic is meaningful, I would need to know how much new energy was generated in proportion to the existing energy.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 01, 2026, 12:26:29 PM

Quote from: Zoupa on January 01, 2026, 12:24:08 AMTemporary is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. It's been 5 centuries.

Global manufacturing was concentrated in China and India until the late 18th century.  So the ascendancy of the world between California and the Elbe runs from about 1750-2010.  Not an insignificant period, but in the context of millennia, a couple hundred years or so can still fairly be called temporary and anomalous.

This seems meaningless. When China was the leader in manufacturing, how much did the rest of the world feel that? Not much (please don't come with luxury cloth prices falling or something or other :P ). When Europe got the lead, however, we sure made that felt everywhere.

Obviously it is different now with China colonising Africa and vassalising Russia and the like.

Quote from: Tamas on January 02, 2026, 11:33:28 AMThis seems meaningless. When China was the leader in manufacturing, how much did the rest of the world feel that? Not much (please don't come with luxury cloth prices falling or something or other :P ). When Europe got the lead, however, we sure made that felt everywhere.

Obviously it is different now with China colonising Africa and vassalising Russia and the like.

Pre-18C Chinese trade was primarily in silk, ceramics, advanced metalworking, and (especially) paper. The rest of the world felt that, as far south as the Swahili Coast and as far east as eastern Indonesia.

Indian cotton was one of the most widely-traded commodities of the ancient world. They were Britain long before Britain was Britain.

Indian Ocean trade was flourishing long before Europe even knew that there was an Indian Ocean.

China was exporting a lot of paper to Africa?

Quote from: Razgovory on January 02, 2026, 12:10:18 PMChina was exporting a lot of paper to Africa?

I don't know what qualifies as "a lot," but the Arabs carried Chinese paper to the Swahili Coast. The Arabs developed their own paper production over time, and Arab-made paper replaced Chinese-made in the Africa trade, but Chinese paper certainly qualifies as something "the rest of the world [felt]."

Quote from: Tamas on January 02, 2026, 11:33:28 AM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 01, 2026, 12:26:29 PM

Quote from: Zoupa on January 01, 2026, 12:24:08 AMTemporary is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. It's been 5 centuries.

Global manufacturing was concentrated in China and India until the late 18th century.  So the ascendancy of the world between California and the Elbe runs from about 1750-2010.  Not an insignificant period, but in the context of millennia, a couple hundred years or so can still fairly be called temporary and anomalous.

This seems meaningless. When China was the leader in manufacturing, how much did the rest of the world feel that? Not much (please don't come with luxury cloth prices falling or something or other :P ). When Europe got the lead, however, we sure made that felt everywhere.

Obviously it is different now with China colonising Africa and vassalising Russia and the like.

Which region of the world was the most successful meant less to people the further back you.
Go back to BC and its pure naval gazing theoretical talk that the middle east was so much more developed than Britain or Japan- nobody in those places would have a clue what you were talking about.
First millennium AD and a very educated Chinese person would be aware Rome was this power in the west but it wouldn't impact them much.
Early second millennium AD and most people with a little bit of learning would be aware of China/the Indies/whatever as this foreign super rich land.
Industrial revolution and Europe's dominance was really impacting the lives of normal people in Asia though many would still be able to keep living their lives as they always had.
Flash forward to today where who is in top will impact every aspect of our lives on a daily basis.

Yeah and I understand that basically up to a third of the Roman Empire's annual revenue was used in the trade to India.

Which is sort of my point. I wasn't framing it around "world leader" but orientation, which was south and east.

I get the feeling that a great deal of production in east and south asia is a function of large populations.  They had a very productive food system that led to a larger population, the larger population produced more of an item because it was simply larger, but also consumed the items.

There is something obviously unbalanced here.  If these people were the economic powerhouses of their day, why weren't they sailing to Europe for trade rather than the other way around?

They didn't care about a heathen middleman squeezing the middle, europe did. There had been east west trade for millennia, but it wasn't until some 40 years after the fall of Byzantium did Portugal pass the cape of good hope (and another decade or so to actually make it to India)

For heathen read Italian :lol: Venice funded a Mamluk navy (and built armaments for it transported over Egypt) to take on the Portuguese in the Indian Ocean - which very nearly worked.

Also we really really should t discount the religious motivation and imaginary world of those European states. Prester John and outflanking the world of Islam to take Jerusalem were significant motivations in the early days. I think our secular age and mind looks for material reasons and views anyone talking about Prester John as either cynical or a credulous fool. Which I think is wrong and misses important parts of the picture.

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 02, 2026, 01:13:44 PMFor heathen read Italian :lol: Venice funded a Mamluk navy (and built armaments for it transported over Egypt) to take on the Portuguese in the Indian Ocean - which very nearly worked.

Also we really really should t discount the religious motivation and imaginary world of those European states. Prester John and outflanking the world of Islam to take Jerusalem were significant motivations in the early days. I think our secular age and mind looks for material reasons and views anyone talking about Prester John as either cynical or a credulous fool. Which I think is wrong and misses important parts of the picture.

Italians have always been treacherous bastards... second only perhaps to the French :P

Quote from: Razgovory on January 02, 2026, 12:49:54 PMThere is something obviously unbalanced here.  If these people were the economic powerhouses of their day, why weren't they sailing to Europe for trade rather than the other way around?

They didn't need anything Europe have to offer, which is why when trade occurred, China mostly took in silver by default. Europe definitely "felt" that as the chronic specie drain fueled the regular rounds of currency devaluations that plagued early modern Europe as well as encouraging the American colonial ventures. The dynamic continued well into the 19th century, being a key motivator underlying the Opium Wars.

Quote from: Razgovory on January 02, 2026, 12:49:54 PMI get the feeling that a great deal of production in east and south asia is a function of large populations.  They had a very productive food system that led to a larger population, the larger population produced more of an item because it was simply larger, but also consumed the items.

This is basically how civilisation works.

Quote from: Razgovory on January 02, 2026, 12:49:54 PMI get the feeling that a great deal of production in east and south asia is a function of large populations.  They had a very productive food system that led to a larger population, the larger population produced more of an item because it was simply larger, but also consumed the items.

They had a very productive food system because they had what was for the time world class infrastructure and relatively stable social and political systems. 

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 02, 2026, 01:22:35 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on January 02, 2026, 12:49:54 PMThere is something obviously unbalanced here.  If these people were the economic powerhouses of their day, why weren't they sailing to Europe for trade rather than the other way around?

They didn't need anything Europe have to offer, which is why when trade occurred, China mostly took in silver by default. Europe definitely "felt" that as the chronic specie drain fueled the regular rounds of currency devaluations that plagued early modern Europe as well as encouraging the American colonial ventures. The dynamic continued well into the 19th century, being a key motivator underlying the Opium Wars.

Hmmm, sounds familiar. China exports loads of stuff but imports little, and acquires lots of currency in the meantime, causing frictions with the Europeans and others.

Quote from: PJL on January 02, 2026, 02:33:29 PMHmmm, sounds familiar. China exports loads of stuff but imports little, and acquires lots of currency in the meantime, causing frictions with the Europeans and others.

The Spanish silver gained from the New World ruined the Chinese economy as well, since abundant silver destroyed the value of the accumulated silver China had from previous trade and destroyed the value of paper currency.  When the Little Ice Age disrupted those silver supplies, the Ming dynasty collapsed because it couldn't adjust to the new inflated price of silver (e.g. farmers could no longer pay taxes).

So what you're saying is that he coming global warming crisis will be the saviour of the western world? :hmm: huzzah!


:P

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 02, 2026, 08:21:23 AM

Quote from: Jacob on January 01, 2026, 01:04:49 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 01, 2026, 12:08:08 PMToo bad we can't ignore the US impact on climate change.

I saw an article the that claimed that more than 90% of the US' new energy capacity in 2025 was renewable, in spite of Trump's efforts.

To be able to understand whether that statistic is meaningful, I would need to know how much new energy was generated in proportion to the existing energy.

The vast adoption of wind and solar and batteries is very real. Building those things just has a much lower entry cost than building a giant thermal plant.

The problem is that the current energy needs of the grid is exploding with all of these data centers. So despite this very impressive adoption the greenhouse gas emissions are probably not going to decrease much, in fact they will increase.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 02, 2026, 01:29:27 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on January 02, 2026, 12:49:54 PMI get the feeling that a great deal of production in east and south asia is a function of large populations.  They had a very productive food system that led to a larger population, the larger population produced more of an item because it was simply larger, but also consumed the items.

They had a very productive food system because they had what was for the time world class infrastructure and relatively stable social and political systems. 

They have a very productive food system because of climate and crops.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 02, 2026, 01:22:35 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on January 02, 2026, 12:49:54 PMThere is something obviously unbalanced here.  If these people were the economic powerhouses of their day, why weren't they sailing to Europe for trade rather than the other way around?

They didn't need anything Europe have to offer, which is why when trade occurred, China mostly took in silver by default. Europe definitely "felt" that as the chronic specie drain fueled the regular rounds of currency devaluations that plagued early modern Europe as well as encouraging the American colonial ventures. The dynamic continued well into the 19th century, being a key motivator underlying the Opium Wars.

Nobody in China thought they could profit by sailing to Europe and seeing what they had for sale?  

Quote from: Razgovory on January 02, 2026, 06:55:51 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 02, 2026, 01:22:35 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on January 02, 2026, 12:49:54 PMThere is something obviously unbalanced here.  If these people were the economic powerhouses of their day, why weren't they sailing to Europe for trade rather than the other way around?

They didn't need anything Europe have to offer, which is why when trade occurred, China mostly took in silver by default. Europe definitely "felt" that as the chronic specie drain fueled the regular rounds of currency devaluations that plagued early modern Europe as well as encouraging the American colonial ventures. The dynamic continued well into the 19th century, being a key motivator underlying the Opium Wars.

Nobody in China thought they could profit by sailing to Europe and seeing what they had for sale? 

Why? They had a stable trade network that obvioulsy made them money, what incentive would they have to invest in a fleet and set sail?

Quote from: Razgovory on January 02, 2026, 06:55:51 PMNobody in China thought they could profit by sailing to Europe and seeing what they had for sale? 

In Confucianist thought, merchants were the lowest rung of society, because Confucius claimed that they produced nothing and just exploited the labor of others.  So merchants had to be careful not to attract the attention of the tax farmers by appearing too wealthy. Most of China's trade was with southeast Asia, where, in fact, many Chinese expatriate communities sprung up to avoid Chinese government oppression.

In China itself there was little in the way of entrepreneurial spirit. Classical Chinese culture was very much (officially) opposed to desiring too much in the way of material goods.

Quote from: Razgovory on January 02, 2026, 06:50:34 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 02, 2026, 01:29:27 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on January 02, 2026, 12:49:54 PMI get the feeling that a great deal of production in east and south asia is a function of large populations.  They had a very productive food system that led to a larger population, the larger population produced more of an item because it was simply larger, but also consumed the items.

They had a very productive food system because they had what was for the time world class infrastructure and relatively stable social and political systems. 

They have a very productive food system because of climate and crops.

Both things can be true -_-

Though I am not sure the food system was naturally as reliable as you think Raz as China has hundreds and hundreds of documented famines in its history.

Quote from: grumbler on January 02, 2026, 09:40:18 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on January 02, 2026, 06:55:51 PMNobody in China thought they could profit by sailing to Europe and seeing what they had for sale? 

In Confucianist thought, merchants were the lowest rung of society, because Confucius claimed that they produced nothing and just exploited the labor of others.  So merchants had to be careful not to attract the attention of the tax farmers by appearing too wealthy. Most of China's trade was with southeast Asia, where, in fact, many Chinese expatriate communities sprung up to avoid Chinese government oppression.

In China itself there was little in the way of entrepreneurial spirit. Classical Chinese culture was very much (officially) opposed to desiring too much in the way of material goods.

That makes more sense.  Thank you.

Quote from: HVC on January 02, 2026, 03:17:55 PMSo what you're saying is that he coming global warming crisis will be the saviour of the western world? :hmm: huzzah!


:P

Wouldn't be surprised if there are some powerful morons in America actually thinking this way.
Certainly Russia is actively pro climate change.

If there was some kind of global scale natural disaster at this point in history then we're doomed.  It'll become dog eats dog real fast.

If?

All this geopolitical turmoil feels like a warm old blanket to me. Cold War 2.0

AI is hyped to the sky by overleveraged SF tech elites, so far it's been an upgraded spellchecker and wiki assistant. I can see it freeing a lot of drudge type white collars from their desks. School exams will go back to written essays and verbal exams (already happening).

As to climate change, it's largely solved, if imperfectly, giant carbon capture plants in Iceland will sequester excess carbon to turn it into rock. Already happening on a small scale, fairly easy to scale up. As an aside, we're just about out of the Little Ice Age so the next few centuries would be balmier by default. So if you get more heat related weather events, a simple kyrie eleison should do. God will preserve his own.

As to birth rates, just pay them. That's it, just pay young people the same eye-watering amounts we spend on treating cancer in boomers to give them an extra 1-2 years of shitty extra life. Problem solved.

   

Carbon capture plants will have so little to do with solving climate change. as to be effectively zero.
Without an amazing breakthrough they just don't work in remotely the league of something that could make a different.
They're basically just a scam being pushed by polluters so they can pretend to be responsible whilst changing nothing.

Climate change is far from solved too.
The current rate of change in efforts to tackle it is such that an end is in realistic sight but not  fast enough yet.
If you're an optimist you can see the speed of change picking up so we do avoid the worst... But we are already past the "very bad" level. No helping.

Agreed on making having kids affordable.
Also promoting general economic equality, housing, and transport so people can live reach of their parents.

For mitigating climate change my hope, though far future wards, is in space borne solar shields to try and bring temperatures back down towards optimal levels albeit in a reversible way if they re unforseen impacts.

In the long run climate change will be solved by bigger technology break through like fusion power probably.  EV tech continues to advance although at some point the recycling disposal problem for batteries and solar panels will need a solution...

Definitely Cold War 2.0 but with a new configuration of adversaries that haven't quite solidified yet.

The current US administration seems to be on course to cold war hostility towards Europe. Europe is sort of aware of it, but the reaction is a bit slow. It does feel a bit like we're in the "peace in our time" moment, where Europe is trying to put a good face on it while they (hopefully) rearm (militarily, technologically, and in terms of messaging) before the shit hits the fan for real.

With regards to cost of raising kids, I think a fundamental problem of housing exists.  We have boomers and single couples living in homes, and parents in apartments. That doesn't make sense, should probably adjust the nature of property taxation...

Quote from: Legbiter on January 04, 2026, 02:32:48 PMAll this geopolitical turmoil feels like a warm old blanket to me. Cold War 2.0

AI is hyped to the sky by overleveraged SF tech elites, so far it's been an upgraded spellchecker and wiki assistant. I can see it freeing a lot of drudge type white collars from their desks. School exams will go back to written essays and verbal exams (already happening).

As to climate change, it's largely solved, if imperfectly, giant carbon capture plants in Iceland will sequester excess carbon to turn it into rock. Already happening on a small scale, fairly easy to scale up. As an aside, we're just about out of the Little Ice Age so the next few centuries would be balmier by default. So if you get more heat related weather events, a simple kyrie eleison should do. God will preserve his own.

As to birth rates, just pay them. That's it, just pay young people the same eye-watering amounts we spend on treating cancer in boomers to give them an extra 1-2 years of shitty extra life. Problem solved.

   

Those be some trippin' drugs yo on.

Quote from: grumbler on January 04, 2026, 03:55:37 PMThose be some trippin' drugs yo on.

And you be stepping on my bait...

How did the leges Juliae work in your time?

Quote from: Bauer on January 04, 2026, 03:52:00 PMIn the long run climate change will be solved by bigger technology break through like fusion power probably.  EV tech continues to advance although at some point the recycling disposal problem for batteries and solar panels will need a solution...

Problem with ev is that it needs clean electricity. Expanding the the grid with dirty power makes it less effective. For example Germany still uses a lot of coal power (although I know there a plan to phase that out. Though I don't know about the efficiency of gas burning vs coal burning to power vehicles.

Quote from: Josquius on January 04, 2026, 03:44:12 PMCarbon capture plants will have so little to do with solving climate change. as to be effectively zero.
Without an amazing breakthrough they just don't work in remotely the league of something that could make a different.
They're basically just a scam being pushed by polluters so they can pretend to be responsible whilst changing nothing

You should write a letter to China informing them of this fact.

Quote from: Bauer on January 04, 2026, 03:53:39 PMWith regards to cost of raising kids, I think a fundamental problem of housing exists.  We have boomers and single couples living in homes, and parents in apartments. That doesn't make sense, should probably adjust the nature of property taxation...

I don't know if apartments are necessarily the problem. I mean Europe, as far as I recall, has a high proportion of apartment dwellers. And while they now have a population problem they didn't in the past but still relied on apartments. And houses were a lot smaller in the past when people were popping out kids left and right.

What's wrong with apartments?

The teeming tenements of the past suggest to me that apartment living is not the cause of declining birthrate.

Quote from: Jacob on January 04, 2026, 09:19:44 PMThe teeming tenements of the past suggest to me that apartment living is not the cause of declining birthrate.

I would say that more generally, I find arguments of the form "people are too poor to have kids" unpersuasive.  If you look at countries sorted by natural growth rates, you have a whole bunch of countries in Africa, followed by Afghanistan, West Bank, and Gaza Strip.  None of those places are known for providing immense material wealth to potential parents on a mass scale.  If anything, it seems like being too well-off makes you so perfectionist when it comes to having kids that you wind up not having any.

Quote from: DGuller on January 04, 2026, 10:10:45 PM

Quote from: Jacob on January 04, 2026, 09:19:44 PMThe teeming tenements of the past suggest to me that apartment living is not the cause of declining birthrate.

I would say that more generally, I find arguments of the form "people are too poor to have kids" unpersuasive.  If you look at countries sorted by natural growth rates, you have a whole bunch of countries in Africa, followed by Afghanistan, West Bank, and Gaza Strip.  None of those places are known for providing immense material wealth to potential parents on a mass scale.  If anything, it seems like being too well-off makes you so perfectionist when it comes to having kids that you wind up not having any.

Yeah well those countries are also having crashing birth rates. Everyone is. They are just starting later and from a higher starting point. Whatever is causing it seems to be impacting everyone, no matter the wealth level.

Might be correlated with urbanization and the decrease in people engaged in subsistence agriculture, or any agriculture. Children aren't the go-to hack to increase your production capacity.
Plus a lot of other parameters I guess.

Quote from: DGuller on January 04, 2026, 10:10:45 PM

Quote from: Jacob on January 04, 2026, 09:19:44 PMThe teeming tenements of the past suggest to me that apartment living is not the cause of declining birthrate.

I would say that more generally, I find arguments of the form "people are too poor to have kids" unpersuasive.  If you look at countries sorted by natural growth rates, you have a whole bunch of countries in Africa, followed by Afghanistan, West Bank, and Gaza Strip.  None of those places are known for providing immense material wealth to potential parents on a mass scale.  If anything, it seems like being too well-off makes you so perfectionist when it comes to having kids that you wind up not having any.

Education is the key factor.
Education + poverty is a killer synergy.

Gaza strip is quite a unique case with its high birth rate. Such places that were formerly reasonably developed with good education levels but then hit hard times are usually bottom for birth rates. Lots at play there

In Gaza they very heavily promote a high birthrate.  A man makes more money at his job for each kid he has.  Having more children is seen as part of the war for liberation.  I think Arafat called it the "War of Cradles".

Quote from: Razgovory on January 05, 2026, 07:57:12 AMIn Gaza they very heavily promote a high birthrate.  A man makes more money at his job for each kid he has.  Having more children is seen as part of the war for liberation.  I think Arafat called it the "War of Cradles".

Yeah. And they do the same thing in Israel. The birthrates in that tiny area have always been hilariously unsustainably high as part of their ethnic war.

However even there the birthrate is collapsing. It is now down to 3.5 in the Palestinian territories.

Among Jewish Israelis it is 3, which is incredibly high among developed countries.

So while you are correct they are not some big outlier. They are right in line with global trends.

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 02, 2026, 08:21:23 AM

Quote from: Jacob on January 01, 2026, 01:04:49 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 01, 2026, 12:08:08 PMToo bad we can't ignore the US impact on climate change.

I saw an article the that claimed that more than 90% of the US' new energy capacity in 2025 was renewable, in spite of Trump's efforts.

To be able to understand whether that statistic is meaningful, I would need to know how much new energy was generated in proportion to the existing energy.

I found the answer. The claim was not 90% of new energy but rather 90% of new electricity generation.  All of that was because of a hydro electric plant coming online along with four major solar generators.  Renewables now account for about 30% of all electricity generation in the US. Which means, of course, 70% is still generated using fossil fuels.  And so moving past the 1.5C point is inevitable.

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 05, 2026, 09:00:58 AMI found the answer. The claim was not 90% of new energy but rather 90% of new electricity generation.  All of that was because of a hydro electric plant coming online along with four major solar generators.  Renewables now account for about 30% of all electricity generation in the US. Which means, of course, 70% is still generated using fossil fuels.  And so moving past the 1.5C point is inevitable.

The claim was 90% of new energy capacity. And Solar and Wind are rarely operating at top nameplate capacity. I guess I don't understand the distinction you are making. Are renewables normally used for something other than generation?

Quote from: Valmy on January 05, 2026, 09:06:23 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 05, 2026, 09:00:58 AMI found the answer. The claim was not 90% of new energy but rather 90% of new electricity generation.  All of that was because of a hydro electric plant coming online along with four major solar generators.  Renewables now account for about 30% of all electricity generation in the US. Which means, of course, 70% is still generated using fossil fuels.  And so moving past the 1.5C point is inevitable.

The claim was 90% of new energy capacity. And Solar and Wind are rarely operating at top nameplate capacity. I guess I don't understand the distinction you are making. Are renewables normally used for something other than generation?

I'm making the distinction between electricity generation. Which is clearly what solar and wind are being used for and energy generation.  Electricity is obviously part of energy generation, but energy is created and used in a bunch of other ways. For example, internal combustion engines.

90% sounds like a nice number, but it certainly not indicative of the overall energy generated last year. The number of internal combustion engines sold last year far out strips the number of EV's, as just one example.

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 05, 2026, 09:10:24 AMI'm making the distinction between electricity generation. Which is clearly what solar and wind are being used for and energy generation.  Electricity is obviously part of energy generation, but energy is created and used in a bunch of other ways. For example, internal combustion engines.

Ok gotcha. I don't think anybody was trying to be misleading because of fuels. When you talk about installation of energy capacity I don't think anybody is confused and think you are talking about fuels. And in any case we are talking about new energy, so changes. The amount of gasoline per person is considerably lower now in the United States than it was 20 years ago.

Quote90% sounds like a nice number, but it certainly not indicative of the overall energy generated last year. The number of internal combustion engines sold last year far out strips the number of EV's, as just one example.

Well yes but not for that reason. Capacity for wind and solar, and even hydro, doesn't tell the whole story since those times of generation are typically generating at well below capacity. They are always going to look misleadingly high if we just go by capacity and not how much is actually being generated.

I don't think anyone was trying to be misleading. I was asking for context for what the 90% figure meant.  I answered my own question. That is all that happened.

Interesting point about capacity versus what is actually generated. Thanks.