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

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

This pre-supposes that I'm talking simply about shifting to Solar. I'm talking about developing technology, which obviously includes making technologies more affordable and more viable. Your objection misses the point entirely.

It was an example. The point being that there really isn't a viable alternative available (nuclear excepted, but we can't have that), and the continued push to make it happen anyway is actively hurting people more than leaving things be and offering existing, viable, proven tech.

I have no idea what the connection you're trying to make here, actually, because saying "we disagree" doesn't really mean anything. In light of the fact that your objection above is addressing something other than the actual point I was making, I'm gonna have to ask you to read my comment again and try to respond to it more pertinently, if you want to be taken seriously.

You claim we're not willing to get on board, we are. That we're putting our heads in the sand, etc.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Ok I'll break this down. I will assume that energy availability being the chief determinant in quality of life is not in dispute.

As stated in other threads there are approximately 1.3 billion people who have no electricity at all. If we are to raise their standard of living to 1st world levels reducing overall energy production and consumption is a non starter. If anything we must increase it dramatically.

The question thus becomes how to do this.

Wind is too unreliable and Solar has issues with density and storage. Barring a major technological breakthrough in the form of room-temperature super-conductors or hyper-efficient batteries neither is up to the task of replacing our existing electrical sources. Sure you can put some panels on your roof and use them to charge your cell phone, but there's simply no way to run something as energy intensive as a MRI Machine or Desalinization Plant on solar alone.

Of the stuff we already know how to build that leaves coal, Oil/Gas, Hydro-electric, Geo-thermal, and Nuclear Fission.

Coal is off limits for obvious reasons.

Converting coal plants to oil or natural gas would significantly reduce CO2 emissions but this option has been taken off the table by the whole "OMG Fracking!" controversy.

Hydro-Electric and Geo-Thermal are, for the most part, up to the job but are location dependent and hated by environmentalists for obvious reasons.

Which leaves nukes, and if given the choice between building nukes and fucking over the poor most people will choose "fuck over the poor" in a heartbeat. NIMBY

Thus we arrive at our current impasse.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

1++

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

"Coal is off limits for obvious reasons."

No it's not and this is not obvious, while we are seeking alternatives we still are currently using coal power plants. My own city uses coal, and over the years there has been ways to make it cleaner then it used to be.

"Hydro-Electric and Geo-Thermal are, for the most part, up to the job but are location dependent and hated by environmentalists for obvious reasons."

For obvious reasons, you keep using that phrase. Most environmentalists understand that energy options are not perfect but there are better ones and worse ones out there.

"Which leaves nukes, and if given the choice between building nukes and fucking over the poor most people will choose "fuck over the poor" in a heartbeat. NIMBY"

Especially when you put it that way, nuclear power plants are not the same thing as nuclear weapons, "nuke" suggests the building of nuclear weapons. And is there a survey out there for this? Because I don't think most people like the idea of having only those two options.

All this illustrates is that energy options are not perfect, and solutions for it are more complicated then just going wholesale on one solution over another. What this does not illustrate is that people who are for environmentalism are not supporting the denial of energy solutions to "the poor". You list a bunch of energy sources and list their shortcomings, without even thinking about situational solutions and maybe using more then one energy solution. No one solution out there is perfect, but you cannot let the perfect get in the way of the good. The error I think here is suggesting that there is a perfect solution out there and rejecting all the others that may not solve everything but are still helpful.

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

You know I think that now, absolutes have been a huge, massive problem this entire thread.

[brother-dour.livejournal.com]

I said sometimes!

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Temperament and social role? What hilariously unscientific terms. Historically, temperament has been used to describe women, and not in a positive way.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

And that negates anything that I've just said how?

You're seriously going to argue that biology has no effect on mental state?

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

She acknowledged the physical differences and then went on to imply that these differences have no bearing.

in what possible way that is in any way post-industrial-society-relevant is the "decision making matrix" FUNDAMENTALLY different for women.

She seems willfully blind to the idea that the gender who'll have to carry a fetus around in their body for 9 months should they choose to reproduce will have a different "risk benefit equation" in regards to sex and reproduction than the gender that doesn't.

Likewise if these biological differences have no effect on physical or mental state why are the physical curves so skewed? Why isn't the NFL full of 125 kg (275.6 lb) women who run a 100 meters in 12 seconds? Why do separate male and female sports leagues exist at all?

Why are the social sciences dominated by women and math by men?

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.

Just pointing out the obvious. If given the choice between fighting poverty and saving the spotted owl they pick the owls.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

"Coal is off limits for obvious reasons."

No it's not and this is not obvious

The Idea is to reduce CO2 emissions, not increase them.

For obvious reasons, you keep using that phrase. Most environmentalists understand that energy options are not perfect but there are better ones and worse ones out there.

Most environmentalists are all about "clean energy" until the moment someone suggests building a damn or drilling in a national park.

Especially when you put it that way, nuclear power plants are not the same thing as nuclear weapons, "nuke" suggests the building of nuclear weapons. And is there a survey out there for this? Because I don't think most people like the idea of having only those two options.

I think you underestimate the level of opposition and irrational fear associated with nuclear power.

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

You're all over the place, I'm going to now need some kind of evidence that the spotted owl is directly detrimental to poverty. I find it hard to believe you on anything because you're always presenting these false dilemmas.

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

In the OP it's all too often, too much black and white thinking and either or to take seriously.

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

Depends, are you going to entertain the idea that social roles isn't always relevant to the reality of biology?

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

We've already covered this in the other thread.

The desire to reduce world energy production and consumption is objectively pro-poverty no matter how many noble sentiments you dress it up in.

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

Saving the owls isn't even related to world energy production, it has more to do with habitat destruction. Conservation effort amounts to not cutting down all the damn trees. Cutting down trees has absolutely NO bearing on poverty. The lumber industry reforests their own damn trees now, and they cut down those damn trees so they can keep their damn jobs and the freight industry keeps their damn jobs and the lumber still reaches Home Depot so they get to keep their damn jobs. And in addition to keeping their damn jobs they are enabled to hire more people so they - I'm spelling this out to you - make enough money to get out of poverty. And all these people get to keep their damn jobs without killing the damn birds!

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

The only thing I'm "saying about you" is that you appear to have a misunderstanding of how peer review fits into things, a common and understandable misconception.

So, you're a mind reader then. Great. I literally said nothing about peer review, but you were able to come to a myriad of conclusions about what I do or don't understand about the system. You should go on talk shows with that ability.

No one is claiming that the peer review process is perfect. However, neither does that mean that it should simply be discarded

Neither claim was made, anywhere. Good strawman setup though.

It's not a matter of peer review being "not perfect". It does actually matter what the problem specifically is with it, as detailed in the studies talked bout in the links I provided. If you don't know what the problem with a system is, then you can't fix it effectively. You are jumping ahead to the "give me solutions" phase when you haven't even acknowledged what the problem is, or what the effects the problem has.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

The research shows a "what" and I'm giving a "why" for that "what", so...you're just being contrarian because...

http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2013/04/does_money_really_affect_motiv.html

Other than its functional exchange value, pay is a psychological symbol, and the meaning of money is largely subjective. For example, there are marked individual differences in people's tendency to think or worry about money, and different people value money for different reasons (e.g., as a means to power, freedom, security, or love). If companies want to motivate their workforce, they need to understand what their employees really value — and the answer is bound differ for each individual. Research shows that different values are differentially linked to engagement. For example, income goals based on the pursuit of power, narcissism, or overcoming self-doubt are less rewarding and effective than income goals based on the pursuit of security, family support, and leisure time. Perhaps it is time to compensate people not only according to what they know or do, but also for what they want.

This is basically what I said. If you still want to disagree, take it up with Dr. Chamorro-Premuzic and get back to me when you're done.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Look at the archives and compare what the IPCC was convinced 2010 would look like.....

Why yes, let's do that, and see.

1990: first report of the IPCC:

Based on current models, we predict: under [BAU] increase of global mean temperature during the [21st] century of about 0.3 oC per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2 to 0.5 oC per decade); this is greater than that seen over the past 10,000 years; under other ... scenarios which assume progressively increasing levels of controls, rates of increase in global mean temperature of about 0.2 oC [to] about 0.1 oC per decade.

And?


Again: 1990, same report:

Under the IPCC business as usual emissions scenario, an average rate of global mean sea level rise of about 6 cm (2.3 inches) per decade over the next century (with an uncertainty range of 3 – 10 cm per decade), mainly due to thermal expansion of the oceans and the melting of some land ice.

And?



Gee, I don't see any ORDER OF MAGNITUDE errors.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Look at the archives and compare what the IPCC was convinced 2010 would look like.....

Why yes, let's do that, and see.

1990: first report of the IPCC:

Based on current models, we predict: under [BAU] increase of global mean temperature during the [21st] century of about 0.3 oC per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2 to 0.5 oC per decade); this is greater than that seen over the past 10,000 years; under other ... scenarios which assume progressively increasing levels of controls, rates of increase in global mean temperature of about 0.2 oC [to] about 0.1 oC per decade.

And?


Again: 1990, same report:

Under the IPCC business as usual emissions scenario, an average rate of global mean sea level rise of about 6 cm (2.3 inches) per decade over the next century (with an uncertainty range of 3 – 10 cm per decade), mainly due to thermal expansion of the oceans and the melting of some land ice.

And?



Gee, I don't see any ORDER OF MAGNITUDE errors.

My apologies for the edits, but LJ seemed to freak out at the image links for some unknown reason, and screened my reply. I'm posting it here again with the hopes it clears up. Which it did.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Comment unscreened. LJ really perplexes me sometimes.

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

"When it's responsible to do so" is a nice platitude which means "never, but we didn't want to come across as totally intractable."

[rowsdowerisms.livejournal.com]

They were off by 10 times their original estimate? Cite please.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

Actually, nothing in the quote is contrarian to my statement. The studies to which I linked noted that increasing monetary rewards destroys performance in less-that-rote tasks where creativity and less-than-usual thinking are involved.

Your link notes what types of compensation motivate individuals based on their goal sets, saying nothing about the effect such compensation has on higher-function task performance.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Its like the term indicator species is aligned with human species preservation.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

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?"

You've got your attributions backwards, it's the AGW "proclaimers" that are forcing us into that dichotomy not the "deniers".

What we should be doing is embracing natural gas.
What we should be doing is building dams, and sinking wells, into every aquifer that can support one.
What we should be mass producing MSRs and RTGs rather than using them only for submarines and NASA missions.

But we aren't because every tome someone suggests such alternatives the environmentalists get their panties in a twist. To steal a line from UL, They don't give a tinker's damn about alternative energy except as buzzwords.