An open letter from a dinosaur

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Dear Progressives,

Turn-about being fair play, I figured that I'd write a mirrior of Bean's post But where to start?


A couple months back Johnathan Korman wrote an excellent post on the poles of american politics. In it was the following line ...the correct social order is natural but not effortless — without devotion to the correct social order, conservatives believe we devolve into barbarism.

Do you genuinely believe that if you'd been transported back to fifteenth-century London as a baby, you'd realize all on your own that witch-burning was wrong, slavery was wrong, that every sentient being ought to be in your circle of concern? If so I'd like to know why,because as far as I can tell Homo Sapiens today are no more mentally capable than the Homo Sapiens of 500 years ago. I assert that our current high quality of life has more to do with culture and technology than it does with any inherent superiority to those who came before us. The fact of the matter is that we live in a civil society where, for the most part, people raise their kids to obey the law, pay their taxes, and generally not kill each-other without a damn good reason. It is this state of civility that conservatives seek to conserve.

The majority of these conservation efforts focus on individual and family responsibilities/virtue. They operate on the theory that if you want innovation you need to reward innovation. If you want virtue reward virtue. If you want stable kids reward stable families, because barbarity is never more than a generation or two away. If you want good social order we must reward virtue and punish vice.

It is in this space that intent runs head-long into perceived intent, and I start to turn into my grandad...

Using anfalicious' recent example, I am simply flabbergasted that a "post-gendered society" is even a topic of discussion outside of science fiction. Feminism has moved from arguing that women should be treated equal and have the same rights as men, etc... To that that men and women should be interchangeable. I am expected ignore the fact that the burden of reproduction is carried disproportionately by the female of the species. I am expected to ignore the differences in biology. To ignore the different strengths and weaknesses of both and how they compliment each other. I am expected to be genderless. I am not therefore I am a misogynist.

Global warming is based on computer models that keep failing. Catastrophic predictions are constantly proven wrong and (surprise, surprise) the only solution ever proposed is higher taxes and greater regulatory powers. I suspect that a dog is being wagged therefore I am a "denier".

I don't want to live in a world of "Honor Killings" and medieval torture and I refuse to coddle or kow-tow to those that do therefore I am a Islamiphobe.

I oppose gun control therefore I want children to die.

I support voter ID laws therefore I am a Racist.

Fascist.

Terrorist.

Killer.

I could go on...

These are labels that have been applied to me by my so-called intellectual and moral "betters" in an effort to shut me up.

I am a dinosaur. Hear me roar.

Comments

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

If your data can be used to support conclusions other than your own that's a feature rather than a bug and you have decide which you value more, scientific truth or your political objectives. The majority of AGW advocates have come down on the side of the later.

It becomes political because the misrepresentation of science has real-life impacts on real-life people because of our political process.

Your assertion apply just as much to "your side" as it does "mine".

You didn't really think all those billions of dollars being funneled in to "cap and trade" were about saving the world did you? If so I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

In the minds of the true believers. . . .

. . . is belief! Fluff and nonsense! That's all! Nothing to see, nothing to consider. This goes for anyone who professes true belief, be they pro- or anti-AGW. Belief? It is but opinion, and opinions are like assholes: we all have them, true; but only when we start showing them in public does the shit fly.

That's why I concern myself with facts, the verifiable kind. And those AGW facts are more concrete: There is proof, and there are people (paid handsomely, often) who lie about the proof in the hopes of muddying the waters to opaque.

I ignore the fever pitch of rhetoric no matter which side is the source, and so I missed what you were discussing.

I do have a nagging question, the answer to which (since I avoid the fighting fray of belief online) I cannot say I even remotely know: On which side of this "debate" about verifiable scientific fact does one see the most "strangle in bed/round up and shot" rhetoric, the activists or the deniers?

[yelena-r0ssini.livejournal.com]

See, this feels to me like the setting up of a strawman, whether intentional or not. Because the problem is not the acknowledgement or denial of physical differences or reproductive strategies themselves; the problem is that there's a fairly large sexist, and often politically conservative, contingent that draws some pretty far-reaching and unfounded conclusions from the existence of mild sexual dimorphism in humans. I'm not comfortable "acknowledging" that there are general physical differences between men and women (genitalia, average levels of certain hormones, etc.) because I'm getting the impression - and mind you, I could be wrong - that you think that these general physical differences justify social constructs to which they are absolutely irrelevant. Women are not "naturally" less aggressive, less strong, more monogamous, less sexual, more relationship-oriented, less hierarchical, or less intellectually capable than men. They are "naturally" generally in possession of ovaries and vaginas and slightly higher levels of estrogen and progesterone vs. testosterone, and that's about all that's conclusive. Most if not all extrapolations about "natural" gender roles are based on extremely bad science coupled with retconning stories to justify the status quo, and they disregard hefty contradictory biological and anthropological evidence.

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

Before we start talking about talking, yes of course the government makes laws that we have to adhere to, emissions standards are one of them but I don't see how something like that would be so oppressive.

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

If your data can be used to support conclusions other than your own that's a feature rather than a bug and you have decide which you value more, scientific truth or your political objectives.

The data CAN'T be used to support other than conclusions. The people making these claims are LYING. David Rose is holding up data, saying something completely opposite to what the data says, and then trusting that "holding data" gives him an air of legitimacy, that the average person won't bother to check beyond what is being claimed. The data is clear.

People like David Rose and others out there pushing the denial viewpoint are LYING. They are lying liars that lie.

Instead of trying to sell me your bridge, you might just want to get your money back from the AGW denial camp that sold it to you in the first place.

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

Obama has not put forth any policy that tells us we can't refrigerate our food or heat our homes, you're speculating on things that have not even happened yet. The United States still has a healthy grid system, I can personally vouch for this because one Christmas a couple years ago my family stayed in a cabin visiting some relatives. This was in the most remote corner of Georgia and South Carolina you can think of. The area barely has internet, it does still have electricity, we did not freeze, we did not starve.

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

"You can have your AGW environmentalism or you can help a billion people get out of grinding poverty, but you can't have both."

You can have environmental regulations in the industrialized parts of the world without denying basic amenities to people in non-industrialized parts of the world. I don't know where you get the idea that we can't have both. Part of the search for alternative sources of energy involves providing the impoverished with access to energy.

Why am I even arguing this? All this is, is talking about the extremes of ideology vs practical application. Oh, so like, if someone is for environmentalism at all, they are for denying amenities to the poor? How about a big flat no.

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

As I said: you can have your cake now, but after we reach the tipping point, we're all screwed. I'm sure "electricity for EVERYONE!" will be consolation to those facing massive droughts, crop failures, the collapse of the food chain and migrations of displaced populations.

But hey, there's nothing wrong with electricity. Ever hear of alternatives? You know, those things the deniers want to keep taking away funding from researching and implementing? Why are the only solutions offered by deniers "No electricity, back to nature!" or "Fuck the earth, let's live it up while we can?" There's a middle ground between the two strawman scenarios there. Why be so unimaginative? Whatever happened to that entreupreneurial spirit? We have machinery in Equador right now that is pulling moisture from the air and delivering it - real life Star Wars moisture vaporators, bringing clean water to people who've never had it before. You're telling me we can't come up with a way to meet the electricity needs of a growing world without destroying it in the process?

I take exception to the idea that environmentalists "like polar bears better than people." What's better? Trying to conserve the world, or blindly screaming "HUMANS ARE BETTER! HUMANS ARE BETTER!" while steamrolling forward so knee-jerkedly that we end up destroying it even for humans?

"Well, we're all going to die now, but at least we didn't make the mistake of CARING ABOUT POLAR BEARS. Whew."

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

And this debate is yet another setting up of radicalism vs the beliefs people with half a brain (not of you of course)

Challenging gender roles does not mean denying that men have dicks and chicks have tits... good lord this thread is ridiculous.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

You can have environmental regulations in the industrialized parts of the world without denying basic amenities to people in non-industrialized parts of the world.

No, you can't. The math simply does not add up. You'd have an easier time using a tea-cup to empty the black sea.

Part of the search for alternative sources of energy involves providing the impoverished with access to energy.

Except where those proposals involve, you know, actual access.

If this were well and truly the case we wouldn't be strip-mining china for cadmium, and LNG and Nuclear plants wouldn't be facing so much opposition from the environmentalist community.

Deeds speak louder than words.

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

I think you mentioned before that you were a scientist, tell me, are you in league with some super secret kabal of people intentionally misleading the public about global warming because... oh I don't know, the lul's or something? Because I'm sick of hearing conspiracy nuts asking about it.

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

Any one who doesn't realize the cost of removing major predators from an ecosystem and how it eventually comes to harm our fellow humans can go do the same.

Or maybe the only humans that matter are us, go fuck the Inuit I guess...

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

"No, you can't. The math simply does not add up."

Citation needed, I fail to see how driving electric cars and recycling our cans are causing people to starve.

"Except where those proposals involve, you know, actual access."

Citation needed again, because I even remember a thread posted here talking about building a power system that runs trough Europe and Africa. And it's just basic logic to deduce that finding alternative sources of power can help provide power in areas where it simply would not be practical to just build a fossil fuel plant.

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

I haven't gotten my invitation letter to the super-secret illuminati cabal yet. I'm so impatient. COME ON CONSPIRACY GUYS!

(Seriously though, I'm still in school (working on my grad degrees) so I'm not a full on 'scientist' yet. And regardless, my field of expertise is going to be astrophysics, so I'm not going to be the one to go to on Climate Change.... which is why I depend on the research and expertise of those who are studied in that field, namely, the climate scientists, much as I trust my doctor to give me a physical/diagnose illness rather than do it all myself.)

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

I'm just trying to understand the warrants and assumption behind your arguments because from where I'm sitting they make absolutely no sense.

For instance...

In what possible way that is in any way post-industrial-society-relevant is the "decision making matrix" FUNDAMENTALLY different for women who have the option to reproduce or not reproduce as they see fit?

First and most foremost is that the decision to reproduce, and the weighting factors involved in that choice are going to be dramatically different between genders. For obvious reasons the choice to reproduce or not, holds far greater prominence for females than it is for males as such there is an exponentially greater incentive for hypergamy and monogamy among women than there is for men which in turn effects the social interactions between them.

you think that these general physical differences justify social constructs to which they are absolutely irrelevant.

They are only irrelevant if we assume that the men and women involved are not interested in sex/reproduction. Which, to me at least, seems like an awful stretch.

Women are not "naturally" less aggressive, less strong, more monogamous, less sexual, more relationship-oriented, less hierarchical, or less intellectually capable than men.

So you support the elimination of women's sports? After all, if men and women are equal in regards to physical capability and aggressiveness there is no rational reason for men not to compete in women's leagues and vice versa.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Except that that is exactly what yelana seems to be doing.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Bullshit! Failure to support the remediation policy being discussed makes one a "denier" Full Stop.

Why you would wear a shoe that doesn't fit is beyond me.

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

And here I thought that in her very first paragraph she acknowledged the biological differences, and as far as I can tell there isn't even any discussion on difference in temperament between genders and any justification for the social gender roles.

If you can read that much into what someone is saying when they're trying to say the opposite I find it hard to believe you when you say that people who want to protect the environment want to starve people.

And whatever one may argue about gender differences is going to be a great generalization of what potentially makes up fifty percent of any population. I hate these kind of arguments because men and women are individuals. Any negative qualities affecting men or women do not affect the whole. The problem with people and statistics is they get the assumption that all of one is going to be whatever that thing is. Someone is going to look at something like "%0.5 of women can't do this thing" and go "OMG WOMEN CANNOT DO THIS THING!"

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

Careful someone is going to read into that and say that you are planning on some kind of ultimate evil with your astrophysics.

"I'm still in school" oh, what kind of school huh??? Is is something Obama is funding, oh I bet Obama is giving you money to say that climate change is more of an issue then Americans not having electricity! Why do you hate America!?!

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

Oh shit! It's Scrooge!

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

I disagree.

The trouble is that I DO understand how science works and when someone says "I don't want to show my work or data because the skeptics will just use it to poke holes in my theory" I get very suspicious.

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

I'm getting the impression that your logic is saying that if you support preventing climate change > you support clean energy > you support denying people energy > you support denying impoverished people energy.

I really don't want to over simplifying it that much, but I'm not grasping where you are getting this information so I'm kind of forced to. How can I make it any more clear that supporting clean energy does not equal denying people energy, in fact it is trying to find better ways to provide people with energy! We still have fossil fuel plants, those aren't going away anytime soon! We'll likely be burning coal and oil until we completely run out of the stuff, and then we are even trying to produce more of it artificially.

I. Don't. Get. Your. Logic!

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

A part of me wonders if the opposition of the right to new technologies that would allow an industrial revolution in Africa that doesn't cause catastrophic AGW and therefore doesn't leave the entire fucking world worse off on average than the circumstances in which many Africans currently live, is not borne of sheer racism.

The problem is that denying working, reliable energy sources to a planet that needs them leaves the entire world worse off on average. Trying to shift to solar en masse when it's not affordable enough nor viable enough is a terrible idea that actively hurts people.

Jeff, we point out that giving everyone what we want them to have, using existing technology. will inevitably result in an unmitigated disaster for all of humanity - far worse in terms of scale than the current tragedy that is modern day Africa. Your response is not to get onboard with new technologies and science that will help avoid or ameliorate this effect, but to shoot the messenger, put your head in the sand and deny there is a problem.

And we disagree with you. And we're willing to get on board with new tech and science when it's responsible to do so. You're inadvertently doing exactly what's being accused here. You realize this, right?

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

^ what he said

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

With this said, I really should write about my solar panel experience sometime, inspired in part by mrbogey.