Yeah you pretty much have it pegged. You have thoughts on that?

I also agree with your comment about global options. I find it funny that we complain so much about the two party system but then don't do something simple like IRV.

It is also one of the key drivers behind the problems in globalization IMO…

This is a good critique and being that you get more than a lot of people you can point out glaring omissions, but it is also somewhat intentional to be honest. It's why I prefer an active forum like this rather than a magazine or somesuch. Not to sound too full of myself but I actually had already addressed that at the end of my next long post and I'll go back and make sure that it is clear.

Quite frankly, I've been really surprised by my experiences, where everything that I thought people would have a hard time getting they got very quickly, and other things I thought were obvious took lots of repetition. So part of the reason why I write like that is because it will get the people that are engaged to ask questions about the pieces that they feel they are missing and make the connection themselves. The other problem is that for a lot of my ideas I have a hard time finding sufficiently non-technical sources, and if I went into great detail it would make the posts 3x longer. And of course on a purely personal note, I like writing the breezier style.

If you think that people might be giving up trying to figure it out because I leave to much then please speak up.

Kim R

The last 3 paragraphs or so sound very much like you have in mind applying some sort of nonlinear dynamic system thinking to social or other problems. I got that from the interest in examples that didn't end up where people thought they would. I hope that you will, in time, spell all of these ideas out explicitly. It would be interesting to see where they lead. Conventional wisdom as steady states of political discourse?

A general note. While this was obviously intended as an intro post, something you may need to watch in your writing going forward is that you don't assume that too much of what is in your head is in the reader's head. For instance, I'm pretty sure I know what graph you have in mind when you talk about population becoming square, but of course I could be wrong. There was some similar ambiguity/uncertainty when you were talking about the problem of energy. You never exactly spelled out the problem, and so the readers probably filled in what they think the problem is, which may or may not be what you actually meant.

Let's see. I agree with you very much that in the next 2-3 decades, I think we will discover that the supposed political poles that we've always assumed define the range of options is not in fact the total range of options. I've been struggling to find a new way forward myself that isn't simply a new mismash of old ideas, but never gotten there, so I look forward to it.

One idea: Creativity is not the only source of ideas for a way forward. The right and left dimensions that have defined so much of European and American politics has never been the complete set of options in the world. We may find that certain structures used by other societies from all over the globe and history could have a modern manifestation worth pursuing. I think this might be the case particularly with notions of freedom and democracy. Current notions of these two terms are far too limited. One person, one vote, for instance, isn't the real goal. That's a means of having equal participation and power in self-determination. There may be other ways to allow individual expression that fit more comfortable into certain cultures rather than a strict European/American style democracy.

In short, I'll be glad to read your posts going forward.

This comment of yours: “I should note that I’m pessimistic that we will be able to resolve the energy problem without severe changes in lifestyle.”

I completely agree with your use of the word “severe”. It would be courageous if we in the USA would start taking the necessary steps to adopt conservation as a national priority. I say that with full awareness of how many folks here no longer comprehend the difference between “need” and “want”.

The 'your morals' link was interesting, too, but confirmed my suspicions rather than shed any new light on my plight.

Your comment about political 'orientation' being perhaps somewhat innate sparked a memory- I think you and I had that discussion once back in the day.

Marlowcan: You standing in for DLS this weekend?

Good writing is always welcome, on any topic and from any political standpoint. In that spirit, I am looking forward to reading your posts, and I'm glad that Joe has brought another interesting voice on board at TMV.

again, welcome

dr.e,
ass't editor, columnist, TMV

May your posts be free (or filled, as per your desire) . . . of torches, pitchforks, and enraged villagers (just a typical Shaun thread on an average morning

Cheers

Looking forward to reading (and, it looks like, enjoying) your l o n g posts–albeit not necessarily being “taught or indoctrinated.” You know what they say about old dogs, new tricks, etc. But, who knows.

Welcome

Dorian de Wind