Peterkin

I don't think the UN can work that miracle. You might more fruitfully direct your efforts to persuading your own government to support the UN's initiatives, which, unfortunately, are meeting resistance. To this end, it would help to familiarize yourself with what it's already doing. There, you can campaign against one practice in which the pharmacological industry is hugely guilty: the profligate use of disposable plastic. As a customer, I have browbeaten and coaxed (depending on which member of staff I'm dealing with) my own pharmacy to refill my same containers with the same pills, month after month, rather than new ones every time. I've talked to them about the stacks and stacks of bubble-packed daily doses, but to no avail: some customers find it convenient. As an insider, you might prevail. Everybody can do something. How much and what kind of things depends on your circumstances. Don't fill your child's room with fashionable-for-five-minutes clothing garishly coloured plasticrap (It's not healthy for them, anyway.) Buy toys with thought and care as to what they will contribute to the child's development - can't go far wrong with sporting equipment, building blocks, science and craft kits. Spend as much of your free time with the child as possible outdoors, investigating nature and how things work - your own level of knowledge doesn't matter: if you know much, teach and explain; if you know little, learn together - either way, it's good for the kid, good for you and terrific for your relationship. If at all possible, give the child an opportunity to grow some food - real food, in real earth. And, of course, most obviously, do not let the child see you wasting things, throwing away things that can be reused and recycled.

The absolute number of people matters because of basic survival requirements in terms of resources and land use. It matters, also, if there is disparity, because more of the have-nots will aspire to have status, by whatever means are available - and those means are usually bad news for the meek and animals and the trees. However, it's a very small percent of the people who make the political and economic decisions; draw the maps and set up the rules by which all of the others have to live, work and fight for their share. We don't have to get of all the excess people - that will take care of itself if we just lop off the parasitic top layer.

This by you is "moderate"?

This suggests there might be a big difference between neurodivergent processing and the "extreme personality traits" mentioned in the title, maybe as basic as thoughts vs actions. Extreme personalities tend to resist integration, and they're much more evident to others. I don't think all non-standard personality traits are extreme. I expect a scale from low to high in each category being tested and can't imagine any functional person having one overwhelminingly dominant trait. I imagine people with extremely divergent traits are in prisons, palaces or hospitals.

Two generations. I looked this up last time the subject of population with regard to climate change was raised, and I won't keep repeating the same tiresome task every time someone raises it again. How many children do you and your siblings each have? (I and mine - 0.) That's one sample. Another factor is standard of living, educational attainment, women's role in the economy, infant mortality, access to contraception..... scads of factors. Here is just about everything you need to know. https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rate Well, obviously! So, I guess you should have stopped population growth back then. Many tried, in many different ways and places. They failed. Humanity did not change the way it does business or the way it does life. Mass extinctions and megadeath are inevitable. I don't think everyone is banging on the about the same rights. They lost that when H. sapiens climbed to the top of the food (and every other) chain.

Many people find it hard to be 'mainstream', for any number of reasons. If their non-standard character traits are evident, we already have lots and lots of words to describe people who stand out in some way, including the less popular extremes : shrinking violet, drama queen, hot dog, bully, etc. If their non-standard characteristics are not evident to other people, it means they've managed to integrate with society. It's not up to other people to squeeze anyone into their notion of mainstream.

So is listing of countries in one column or another. People tend to migrate from poor countries (low per capita ecological impact) to rich ones (high per capita ecological impact), presumably for an opportunity to increase their individual consumption from near zero to near the rich people's. That transition incidentally decreases the birth rate of the next generation of the ethnic bloc that had migrated, so the host nation's status on the low-increase list is quickly restored. OTOH, every new resident of a rich country produces more carbon, eats more beef and imports more exotic fruits, raw materials and manufactured goods from poor countries where labour is cheap, taxation is low and regulations are lax. Have you ever watched recent immigrants shop? They're not going for the locally handcrafted items - they can't afford to. They're buying the cheapest products available - which may very come from, be recycled in or the waste dumped in their own countries of origin. Their ecological footprint becomes more difficult to measure to more diffuse it is, due to global commerce. That organization of industry and commerce, more than any other factor, drives climate change as well as population distribution. Of course, migration patterns have been disrupted by territorial wars, resource wars, and will, in he very near future, be massively disrupted by climate change and its attendant wars. (This book was a bit ahead of its time.) When people have no water, the threat of barbed wire and machine guns doesn't stop them: their only choice is to move or die - yet the barbed wire and machine guns will figure largely, however ineffectively, as they always do.

Just reporting what I saw on that single video, not passing judgment on the man or his oeuvre. As for the labels you assign to me - HUH?

Morals are complicated. Politics are complicated. Psychology is complicated. Economics are complicated. Death is simple.

always assuming you could get accurate reporting from that government. I understand that they've been grappling with the problem in a meaningful way, but they always pretend they're achieving better results than is actually the case - just like Russia. (In fairness, I imagine the US would lie a lot more, too, if it were up to a central government PR agency.) Looks an awful lot like too little too late.

I'm not sure they're supposed to function. They're more by way of prizes on the shooting gallery wall. That's true enough. He never engaged with anyone enough to be rude, or ruffle his perfect equanimity. He was quite clear on disliking 'political correctness' in public discourse - as he has made clear many times before. "I'm not bothered about what I'm called." He seems entirely unconscious of a population of less exalted mortals, whose experience of systemic prejudice is .... let's say, more hands-on.

Not in the countries I linked to. It's just a lack of will. Lack of will covers a lot of territory. All of it, really. Of course, if the will had existed and been exerted, everything would be different. But it didn't and wasn't. Ever. The countries where population is shrinking (now - maybe the situation has not been similar from 1950 to now) are products of the way things actually did happen, just as are the countries where population is growing. There could be a billion divergent time-lines all with different outcomes - and only +/- a hundred SF novels to depict them, so far. If people choose to manage it. But people tend not to choose to manage any things that are not looming directly over them, threatening imminent destruction. Whereupon they talk for a long time, then do too little, too late. The contributing factors to climate change were known when we had 5 billion people, 6 billion people - when they still would have been manageable. At 7 billion, it was still possible, with strong, decisive, concerted action.... Now, we can't even scrape up the collective will for effective mitigating measures. Is that domestic use or does it include industry and transport? Because the American is using an awful lot of products that polluted China and the Pacific on their way to him. I suspect the French person also benefits from polluting some other place. Global commerce works the same way as empires used to: importing the clean goodies, while leaving the mess and misery behind.

That depends on whether the small population would have become ever more voracious consumers. (read Dancers at the End of Time by Michael Moorcock) What would the world look like if everyone lived like the upper third of the current income level? Only, that's not really indicative, because the present top 30% is different for each nation, and all based on the economic and industrial precedents set by a much larger population. There is a good deal of scope for speculation in that question - By what means does the population level off? How does population pressure affect international relations? What alternative routes might the advancement of technology taken? How would an earlier introduction of robotics and genetic manipulation have affected social stratification and economics? Far too many embedded questions. Fun to contemplate but impractical.

We bought one of those meters back in 2001, when we were planning the solar array for our home. First, assess your consumption. It was a very rude awakening! Power we were paying for - plus delivery, plus tax, plus debt-retirement (??), calculated per KWh - a whole lot more than we actually used. Second, assess your needs: decide what's essential, wanted, desired and surplus to requirements. We had already replaced most of the light bulbs - horrible, bulky things the low energy ones were back then - then gradually replaced our appliances. (The old stand-up freezer makes a dandy container for solar batteries.) Most importantly, everything is on power-bars now, so that it's only turned on for the few minutes the toaster, coffee pot or microwave is in use. We left the tv on standby so it wouldn't forget its program guide - but since we dropped satellite subscription, we can turn it right off, too. The only big drain this year was the AC/dehumidifier which ran in one large room for much of July.

Yes, it leads to much strife and suffering. However, the suppression of primal impulses and natural instincts is what civilization has been about, culminating in state-instituted* Christianity, which rejects them altogether, along with the body they rode in on. But Peterson didn't address any of that in the videos and excepts I've encountered in this thread (I certainly think the subject merits its own separate discussion, with or without the learned professor.) I didn't see much in the way of political ideas, either, beyond a beautifully stage-crafted long version of "Don't tell me to be care about other people!" (*State instituted religion means that all the laws and mores of the society are based on the tenets of that religion. That - all that that entails - was absent from the Peterson appearances I've sampled. ) I was responding to the long video, wherein the other two people are explaining their position, while Peterson is performing set-pieces for his Libertarian patrons. (Not sure why Stephen Fry is playing the role of a pompous refrigerator) This 'debate' not only failed to change my earlier impression of Peterson, but convinced me that he has no substantial "views" to agree with - or even consider.

Of-bloody-course it is! In every public appearance, he's scoring points with his target audience, selling books and speaking engagements and raking in the money. He's not so much debating as self-promoting.

I didn't become a Peterson fan. That snide bit about "What percent have I benefited from white privilege?" pretty much scuttled him. (Actually, John Oliver answered part of that question.) "The Left" shouldn't engage in identity politics; you should fight each issue of discrimination individually, without annoying anybody....

Just so. You can consult your own experience in various areas of your life: in each case where a group had a hierarchy of dominance, by what procedure were the leader and top tier selected? In sport, it's usually by contest of skill. In work, it's usually through qualifications and experience. In politics, it's by sponsorship and popularity. In the arts, by talent, skill, luck and marketing. In armies, through some complicated system of merits, which rarely involves actual combat. Even in mating, we do like birds, rather than lobsters.

In what circumstances and environments? We spend relatively little time in barrooms and rowdy parties, compared to the time we spend at work, in the pursuit of self-improvement, hobbies and sports or with family. In none of those environments is aggressive confrontation expected or condoned. Even on the football pitch or ice rink, fights are more like brief clashes, immediately followed by a penalty. So, how much of real life status, success, dominance, or whatever men are supposed to be establishing in these confrontations is actually decided by gladiatorial contest? Women being expected to show weakness is a whole different can of Spaghetti-o's.

I forgot to mentions duplicitous and underhanded. In fact, Ii wouldn't be all that surprised to find humans pretty much all cut from the same cloth, at slightly different angles. I was hoping, though, to steer back to the political Peterson effect. In some of those videos, he sounds to me rather like those Fundamentalists who wail "They're stealing our Christmas!!!" when they mean "They're not letting us push everybody around anymore."

It's not been explained to me why such a huge distinction needs to be made between male and female behaviours, transactions and attitudes. Women can be territorial, jealous, ambitious, prideful and ruthless, with men and with other women. Women can take umbrage as well as men. Women can be confrontational and even physically violent when they are injured or threatened - much more so if their children or mates are threatened - just as men (at least the advanced species with which I'm familiar) are more likely to take desperate measures if their mates or offspring are in jeopardy. I suspect Peterson needs to make this distinction in order to justify his stand on all those people who can't be, or refuse to be, classified as M or F ticked neatly in a box. At least he does seem to protest an awful lot about pronouns he might "be forced by law" to utter sometime when referring to a student. AFAIK, we don't have any laws forcing anyone to address anyone else they do not wish to, let alone send them to jail for using the wrong.... well, most words.

Was I not clear? A "situation" takes more than one person to create. This kind of thing doesn't need resolving; it needs defusing. If someone other than a child is behaving inappropriately, it's not my responsibility to educate or correct them. The more enlightened (?evolved) strategy is remove myself - and any others who want my assistance - from the potentially volatile situation.

Yes. For instance, it does not occur to this man that his wife in this hypothetical situation might have a stake, and ought to be consulted rather than be a steak for two dogs to snarl and fight over. Another kind of man would not address the would-be Casanova at all, but noticing that his wife is uncomfortable, come over and say something tactful, like, "Honey, there's an old friend I'd like you to meet," and lead her away, rather than embarrass his wife, his hosts, the drunk he's offering to punch, and possibly himself if the other guy hits back harder. But, suppose the issue of contention is over some inanimate object, like a Mars rover and two member of the team disagree over the landing gear design. Can they really not respect each other without taking it outside or does the team leader have to step in and separate them, every time this happens? Slow progress, I'd imagine. What if the team leader is older and less physically robust than the juniors who disagree? Can they still respect him? (In my experience of team efforts, there has never been perfect agreement, there has never been less than unanimous deference to an experienced and competent team leader, and there has never been a broken jaw - or even a shoving match - and work got done somehow.) PS I'm too slow!

How is an interview, freely (gleefully?) given by the subject 'out of context'? What larger context of a staged debate should one consider when listening to the debate? If the author of a pop- sci book cannot be taken to task for its content, by what can he be judged? The man presents a persona and a set of very strong views to the audience. The audience responds. Where is the injustice?

It seems to be my speciality. Not confusion regarding pendulums, which, in my limited experience swing back and forth, not sideways or up and down. Back and forth can be east to west, left to right or nave to chancel, but never win or lose. Therefore I doubt as to the validity of the metaphor. There is nothing about a pendulum that indicates political direction, nor about political aspirations that indicate a pendulum. I realize that. Only, you did not clarify what you mean by 'politics' (I had been led to believe it was carried out by the polity) and 'government' (in a democracy, that, too, is purported to be driven by the voting population) or who, precisely, is doing the necessary simplifying for those of us [citizens, voters] who fail to understand the complexities of what we ourselves want and how the fruits of our labour are to be allocated and whether our children are drafted, imprisoned or employed. It seems to me the strength of dichotomies is to reduce reality to sound-bites and world-views to flags. All right, I won't try to. (Though, of course they do! Amoeba understand hot/cold, prey/predator, wholesome/poisoned. And of course there are never just two kinds of people or two kinds of zebra or two kinds of alligator, divided along some simple this/that distinction - not even male/female - but I'm not sure about amoeba.) Equally, no. Nor are the interpreters and simplifiers and dichotomizers all equally capable of understanding what they're telling us about. If that capacity divides us into only two kinds of people, the two are : insiders and outsiders; those who lie and those who are lied-to. Otherwise, the governing classes would make an effort to disseminate accurate factual information to the voters - on the expectation that next year, a larger percentage understand it than last year. Is it then your absolute conviction that there are two - and only two - poles in political decision-making and that all governance must have begun with swings from one extreme to the other, at predictable intervals - no divergence, no change in speed, no hesitations - each swing decreasing in amplitude, until it finally comes to rest at the point of equilibrium? That theory has a beautiful symmetry and inevitability, but history does not seem to bear it out. ... unless there is an external force to give it a push from time to time. I am aware of many different positions taken and many different - often quite divergent -descriptions of these positions, but not of a consensus as their definitive meaning. Beecee was able to able elaborate his version; I merely wondered what your version might be. It was not.