ext_370466 (![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
talkpolitics2013-09-07 06:55 pm
sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com) wrote in talkpolitics2013-09-07 06:55 pm
Entry tags:
An open letter from a dinosaur
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.
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.
no subject
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!
no subject
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.
no subject
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.
no subject
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.