Your assertion above was what prompted my original response that you were demeaning yourself by taking the position that you can't be trusted to carry out your own programme.

What is demeaning about simply recognizing the truth?

You rejoined that governmental intervention is required because "we are animals" whose brains "severely discount the future."

...you have not renounced the need for the government to force you to take an action because your animal brain overrides your rational brain and prevents you from carrying out that action.

Nor will I renounce that notion that government must step in to protect us from ourselves, for that is what is required to avoid massive die-off, if indeed it can still be prevented.

As for this business of neuroplasticity, a field whose conclusions I'm willing to accept, if anything it is further evidence in favor of my argument.

The brains of modern humans are so accostomed to energy abundance that we have a hard time conceiving of anything different. And we are so habituated to it that voluntarily switching to a low energy lifestyle is literally a herculean task. Of course there will be individuals who can do it. Some already have. That does not mean we should expect the majority, or even a large fraction to do so. Just the opposite, actually.

How many times are you going to say the same thing? Is your strategy to simply repeat your claims over and over until I scream "Uncle!"?

Amusingly, your posts are now becoming counter-evidence to the neuroplasticity claims - novel external stimili seem to have no effect on your thinking, or your responses.

I've read essentially the same reply from you 3-4 times now. As I mentioned in my last post, neuroplasticity supports my contention that an external agent is needed to help wean humanity off of carbon based energy, something our brains have become molded to expect. Government is the only institution I know of with the capability to accomplish that.

In other words, instead of wanting Government employees to force you to conserve energy, why not change your thinking, thereby changing your brain, and conserve energy on your own initiative, rather than at that of Government employees, who may, after all, screw up energy conservation beyond your worst dream?

You so do not get it. Sure, I might be able to train my brain to use less energy, and not need the government to do it. But that does not solve anything.

I might as well train my brain to believe that the sun will not rise tomorrow. But it still will.

If I re-train my brain to use less energy, the rest of you energy hogs will still overconsume and ruin the planet anyway. This is not about ME - the problem isn't in my mind, it is in the world external to myself, and therefore any change in me will leave the problem as it was before, unchanged.

Even if everyone could re-wire themselves, we don't have the luxury of waiting however long that would take. The problem is already severe.

And, again using yourself as an example, the odds of that kind of rewiring seem remote in the extreme. I fear you are typical of most people - they will greet the idea that they need to reduce their consumption with horror. Therefore, a reliance on voluntary good behavior will not work. Therefore, the government needs to step in.

Q.E.D.

Your fear is without any basis in reality external to your self-limiting consciousness.

Sorry to have misjudged you then, I'm glad to hear that you are aware of the need to conserve.

I and millions of others around the world are acutely conscious of the need to conserve energy and for years have taken every measure available to us to do so, including encouraging yet others to do so, as well.

Every measure? That's a stretch. Then why has energy use been rising? Maybe because the billions who don't card continue their profligate use of energy.

You force me to conclude that at this stage in the evolution of your general awareness, you are simply too emotionally dependent on external, coercive authority to see that human beings are perfectly capable of acting in ways that benefit themselves and everyone else, if they are provided the relevant information and are shown the means by which they can act on that information.

So, go ahead and make excuses for your need to be forced by external agency to do something that you claim to be of the greatest importance, but not important enough for you to act on without your being forced to.

Whatever. We'll just agree to disagree.

Why don't you advocate for governmental intervention in your sex life, while you're at it? Doesn't your animal brain make you think enough dirty thoughts that you'd benefit from some regular interventions by the Federal Sex Police?

Two reaons:

1) There is nothing wrong with my sex life - LOL

and

2) Sex, in and of itself, does not threaten the planet.*

*Full disclosure - overpopulation does threaten the planet, however, and measures to discourage people from having scads of kids is something I would support.

LOL!

I say that I would support policies that discourage people from having scads of kids, and you instantly think I support Chinese style Communism. That's quite a leap.

You've got one thing right - it's easier to win arguments when you make incorrect assumptions about the other person and then attack those presumed positions, instead of those he or she actually holds.

See you around. Maybe if you challenge yourself a bit and read up on ecology and peak oil we can have a more productive conversation next time.