Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'future'.
In the next 4-6 years it's estimated Artificial Intelligence will replace 40-60 million American workers. From self driving cabs, trucks and farm equipment to pilot less planes, robot construction workers and fully automated warehouses, The move to A.I. will be embraced by cost cutting executives who will only be alarmed when A.I. can be programmed to replace upper management in companies.
If the idea of "liberal" has any meaning, we must adapt to the world we live in. As Einstein said, "Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results IS the definition of insanity". Coming out of this election, if we retrench back to our old and comfortable lines, we insure the same process repeats. The reality is that this country's vote split pretty much down the middle. One half of the people voted for Trump and one half voted for Hillary. Because of our own arcane and unchanged rules, Trump won. That is a reality that we have to accept before we do anything else. TRUMP WON. Let your head wrap around that one for a moment. This is the president we have to live with for the next 4 years whether you want to or not. Saying anything else, wanting to play the election over or having some other process try to save us, is just grasping at straws. If we want this to be different then we need to BE different. The biggest fallacy of this campaign (and I was guilty of it too), was that Trump was so flawed that NO ONE would vote for him. He kept proving it over and over again so it seemed a no brainer. Guess what, that is a fallacy. 1 out of 2 people would and DID vote for him. This is an absolutely proven fact. The more Trump's flaws were pointed out, the more determined we made people to vote for him. What he DID do is offer people a choice over the tried and true Washington insider. He held out the promise and the possibility of something different beyond the same people reaping the rewards and the same people being left out. Guess what? The same people were very tired of being on the losing end. They were tired of their work closing and being left out of the economic upturn. People generally didn't want Trump but he was the only one in the ring that offered something different. He was the only one that did not scream "politics as usual!" Hillary came out and said, "If you like Obama, I'll give you more of the same!" The result tells us that wasn't enough. If we had accepted the split when it was first presented, that 1 out of 2 people would feel left out, that would have told us that you have to reach out to those people to reach them. Even a little! You can't take everyone with you but even a very few would have made a huge difference. It was entirely possible to reach to the set of people who had no job opportunities and give them those, It was entirely possible to listen to those people and give at least some of them a place at the table. When the decision was made that they weren't needed, they turned out in droves to tell the world that they were relevant. Calling that anything but a mistake is fruitless face saving. It WASN'T money. Hillary and crew spent boatloads. Poorly apparently because they didn't buy the election. Throwing more money at it is just stupidity if there isn't a message that resonates. Guess what? Insuring that every minority group gets their rights is not a resonating message unless you include EVERY group. If you put them in a basket they see themselves that way and vote that way. This IS reality for at least the next 10 years. It will take at least that long for significant numbers of the white, older, un-college educated, currently left behind to die off enough to impact the elections. 10 years is a long time to be out of power. If the liberal side of the argument reaches for the familiar it makes a mistake. Liberals need a message that include a significant chunk of the folks that voted for "something, anything DIFFERENT". It is entirely possible to offer these folks an education and an ability to get a job. Make them one of us instead of not us. Liberals cannot keep playing the game of automatically being on the other side from the right. "For everything they do, we do the opposite." That is just being the "loyal opposition". You let them set the agenda and we are on the negative side. Being a liberal has to stand for something, to take risks, to bring the benefits to people not normally thought of. If it doesn't, it just sets up to lose again. The liberal message already resonates, "give rights to EVERYONE" and this time don't automatically assume that white males know they are included when clearly they are not. You have to actively reach out to that group. This might be hard but seeing that this group already sees they are a group and excluded should tell us something. After all 10 years is a LONG, LONG time to lose.
I would like to talk about climate change once again. In particular with our conservative opponents. I understand there is really a lot being said and written on the topic recently and some of you got tired of it already. But it concerns the future of the entire planet and deserves a small portion of your time and attention. The following report was prepared by the most respected and trusted scientists in the field of climate, not some kind of brain-washed eco-activists.: http://www.climatecentral.org/news/ipcc-synthesis-report-climate-change-18272?gclid=CjwKEAjw876oBRCYr86w6KGfpkgSJAACIidwJ5laKSn9kyIA7QSzuGXGj7gz0Qc90OM9fg9veScGuhoCIUPw_wcB It says that we, humanity and the planet itself, are in deep trouble. We can limit climate change but it requires action. Why are we not doing anything on the governmental level to literally save the humanity? Because people see no need to do something about the future. Creating jobs somewhere in Kansas is portrayed as a national heroism while shutting down a heavily polluting factory equals treason.