150 years in nothing if you look at the timescale in which climate change occurs. 150 years is basically noise. It's as saying that Bitcoin will drop this year because it dropped for the last 5 minutes.

I have yet to see one single mind which grasps statistics to comment.

I don't think we can tell whether global warming is real or not, anyone claiming otherwise has shoddy models. People don't have an idea how complex the heat cycle is on our planet. Oceans can store centuries of heat until releasing it back and our models are just too simplistic to run the numbers properly. Given that climate changes very gradually and there are a lot of processes we don't understand induction makes turkeys (Russell's turkey) out of us. Though common sense says we should proceed with caution because systems such as climate don't change in a linear way. Common sense can also tell us that CO2 is probably just fearmongering. I refuse to believe ecosystems could not regulate atmospheric CO2 game theory style (like predator-pray models), had the case been otherwise and CO2 could make us spiral down the path of Venus it would have happened in the past already. There were times in our history when CO2 levels were manifold higher than today, by a factor upwards to 50 or so I think.

Want my opinion? Stay away from identity politics and their proselytes, this means both sides. You can't get any meaningful dialogue.

It is no longer about equality (and women are equal in rights) media feminism seeks identity instead of equality, that's why any divergence from the mean in distributions (if and only if women are at a disadvantage) means sexism and that's why you have to thinker with opportunity until the distributions are identical (top down thinkering, top down imposed "equality"). Media feminists are trained in the art of outrage and illogical BS, they can't understand how systems converge, how small preferences can lead to a large divergence in complex systems. Take STEM gap, which is one of the biggest factor in the so called wage gap, as women get too many social sciences degree which aren't very useful. You are more likely to go to the same university/specialization as your friends. Your friends are more likely to have the same sex as you. And as degree choices follow trends etc, these two factors will bias distributions one way or another, creating vicious cycles in which you end up with 80/20 distribution. If you look at Iran where the trends are different it is 80% women in STEM, compared to the other way around in the Western world. And in Iran women are actually persecuted.

Modern feminism is pernicious for women. Its narrative is that women are constant victims and these types of narrative will be self-fulfilling in the sense that women will feel oppressed and will chalk off setbacks to oppression, thus failing to learn from trial and error. That feminism is a joke and hypocritical can be easily proved. Allegedly feminism is fighting institutional sexism. Do you know what is the grossest instance of institutional sexism in the US and generally everywhere? Justice systems. In the US men get 60% longer sentences and are twice as likely to be imprisoned for the same crime and record than women. The gender disparity is larger than any racial disparity which grabs a lot of media attention. And mind you that this gap here is rigurous, as in the only things that matter in sentencing is crime and record, whereas the age gap which is an immutable fact in the world of feminism is just meaningless blanket statistics. But since there is no equality to gain, no problem to be seen. Hence the hypocrisy.

People should do what they want, not what you want, or any party or "glorious" leader. Trade created our world. As a certain P. N Whitehead said, men have resolved their differences through two means: force or commerce. What he forgot to add is that those who sucked at commerce wanted to control those who didn't by means of force, as the OP suggests.
 

Capitalism boils down with the right to private property and the right to use your property as you see fit. If you don't believe in it, go start your little socialist utopia wherever you want from my part. Just do it on your own dime.

In any way, it always amuses me to see people who grew up reaping all the benefits of capitalism condemn it in favor of socialism. Socialism used to say 150 years ago that the problem of production has been solved and all that remained was the problem of distribution. Tell me, how many advancements in production have happened since then? Socialism has concepts which are sheer nonsense but which for some reason are very catchy at first glance. Like democratic control of the means of production. Let's say I start a firm and devote my time and money in developing a product which becomes a success and can't keep up with contracts. I need to hire two more people to help in production. According to socialist principles they now have a say in production, "democratically" they can vote to produce whatever, even if they have no f clue about what they are doing and are mere;y doing physical labor, even if it was not their ideas, time, will and money which developed the business (had I lost my money or went bankrupt as MOST business endeavors do, would potential workers compensate my loss ? -- the workers want freerolls). If I invented the iPhone and the workers wanted to build 3310 because it has been successful in the past, I should just accept their decision as they are more. And don't get me started on dialectic materialism et al.

And even if you assume the problem of production can be solved, let's say robots, the problem of distribution is unsolvable top down or through voting or whatever. The solution for distribution is simple: money and its free circulation.

PS. All the people commenting are most likely capitalists. The problem is they don't know what socialism and capitalism are exactly and are muddleheaded.

Fiat is very misunderstood. The best way to explain it is to look at the alternative, the gold standard. Given that gold is in limited supply (2% growth per year, much lower than economic growth) any gold standard will mean deflation when you have economic growth, so the value of gold reflects the new value being created. And deflation is very bad long term. It stifles trade because why buy something today when your money will be worth more tomorrow? Deflation creates a game in which the person who can afford to move last wins, as in very in favor of the ultra wealthy. Which means that with deflation they cannot go bust anymore, all they have to do is keep their money safe and deflation will do the rest, but with inflation they have to move their money otherwise inflation will erode their wealth in time. If you look at US history you'd see deflation causing depression in times where capital was flowing into the economy. Inflation stimulates the economy, the person who moves first has the most to gain because money is losing its value constantly.

Fiat is a very elegant solution to the problem of deflation. When you had a gold standard money was synonymous with value. But Fiat is not just value, fiat also stores debt because a debt is being made every time money is being created and our financial systems are set up in such a way that value rises to the top and debt sinks to the bottom. Bank bail outs meant the people at the top kept the value while the people at the bottom were stuck with all the debt. That is the problem, not fiat per se. But as long as fiat will be controlled by bankers and governments you'll get crap like this.