|
|
|
|
|
|
by toomuchtodo
1020 days ago
|
|
|
I didn’t say genocide, I said violence over scarce resources. They are distinct motivators. I also didn’t say to start it, I said to win. > To answer your question: i think it’s more likely that we build an egalitarian global society, or at least continue on the path. Good luck with that. Hope is not a strategy, but hopefully the future is not as bleak as the current data predicts. Show me a voter cohort that will willingly give up substantial go forward energy or resource quality of life for people on the other side of the world who they have not nor will never meet. Do you know how many people are dying right now at this moment because their basic needs are not being met? One every 4 seconds per Oxfam. This is before more frequent heat events, crop failures, aquifers reaching terminal depletion, etc. https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/humanitarian-organiz... Agreed it’s (extremely!) depressing, but facts are different than a reality based on feelings. Finding truth is following the facts to the (sometimes) unpleasant places it takes us. |
|
|
Voters might never do it, but the guy who wins the Presidency and only has to face voters every 4 years, he starts thinking about Nobel Peace Prize the moment he sets foot in the WH, and to make a legitimate candidacy he needs to be a great humanitarian and/or getting some significant Foreign Policy victories.
Bush 43 took it upon himself to fund a whole lot of malaria and HIV prevention campaigns, and even Trump pursued the defeat of ISIS and normalization of relationships between Israel and the Arab world.