You're continuing to change the subject further and further away from the original post I was responding to. I'm not arguing everything in the world. I'm arguing against absolutist, purity-based solutions and in favor of rational cost vs. benefit analysis instead.
He didn't say "at any cost", he said "possible" which implies there are things to be considered and a chance that there may not be a reasonable justification.
He didn't address "cost" at all. That's the problem. Environmental extremists don't care how many people their plans will hurt.
The solution to "the tragedy of the commons" isn't "as little as possible" grazing -- everyone goes hungry while the sacred, off-limits grass grows long and the commons grazing area becomes a wilderness. Rather than adhering to dogmatic prohibitions, the solution is to make rational tradeoffs to maximize the benefit for people.
Pollution makes people ill. You can see it happening a lot in poor countries, where lack of proper waste disposal brings a lot of health problems.
But greenhouse gas pollution doesn't make anyone ill. So people in poor countries should focus on solving pollution problems that are making them ill. They shouldn't waste resources on greenhouse gas "pollution". They should also focus on growing their economies, so they're no longer as poor, so they can afford to solve all the pollution problems that are making them ill.
Where did he say anything about "the tragedy of the commons"?
He said pollute "as little as possible". That's a quasi-religious purity standard. A non-religious, rational standard for "pollution" would examine tradeoffs: What are the costs and benefits of burning fossil fuels vs. the alternatives? Why can't we use reason to choose what we do rather than environmental dogma?
No, not really. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with that comment. Which part sounds religious? Is it because I think poor people shouldn't be made even poorer for the sake of environmental righteousness?
It's not a rich/poor thing. Don't make it into one.
Environmentalism is for rich people. Poor people have to struggle just to get by. They don't have extra resources to devote to purity-for-purity's-sake. And when they do get enough of a surplus to afford to care for the environment, they need to choose based on what will benefit them -- it's clean drinking water, basic sanitation and air that's healthy to breathe, not "these guys have this scary computer model that predicts problems 100 years from now".
Telling people not to pollute at all is telling people to be poorer. Very rich people can afford to be a little poorer. Most of the rest of the world can't.
The simple goal should be to spew as little as possible, regardless of the potential issues.
Survival is the simple goal for most people. After that rational people seek comfort, security, longevity and prosperity for themselves and their families.
On the other hand, some religious sects value various forms of purity ahead of comfort, security, longevity, and prosperity. Wanting "as little as possible" pollution is more-or-less a religious attitude.
A less environmentally religious person might ask: "In what way does this pollution affect my (and my family's, and my neighbors') survival, comfort, security, longevity, and prosperity? What are the tradeoffs? How do I know for sure?"
Environmentalist narcissism dividend. Plus extremely rich people like Al Gore get to profit by selling you carbon credits and other stuff you don't want but will be forced to buy.
How are you spending your cut of the peace dividend, BTW? I'm pretty sure my peace dividend check got lost in the mail.
Sounds like a good gun for the police to use. Get back to us when every police officer in the country has one of these and is forbidden to use a traditional weapon.
None of the cable providers own Fox News. Except for broadcast TV (which is off-topic), Fox News is independent of any regulated industry and News Corp. is not seeking merger approval. Any discussion of Fox News is off topic. Also, unlike MSNBC, Fox News is not friendly to the Obama Administration. So what's the point of bringing them up? To scratch the itch of Fox-News-haters?
The fact is, these corporations shower money onto both sides. When people stop framing the problem as "left vs. right", and start framing it as "Corps+Pols vs. the Rest of Us", then maybe we'll see something happen. Until then, you're part of the problem.
I guess that make you the problem then. I didn't mention any political parties. I didn't mention left vs right at all. You did. My post is exactly "Corps+Pols vs. the Rest of Us". The partisan talk is all you.
The US approach: cozy up to the guys in charge of regulating you. Contribute to their campaigns and run a 24-hour propaganda network for their benefit (MSNBC). Then they'll allow you to do whatever you want.
So instead of choosing smaller government overlords or bigger government overlords, let's just not have any level of government control most of the things in our lives.
But if there has to be government control, then it should be as local as possible so it's easier to escape by just moving away.
People are told to hate corporations and give the government more power. That power gets co-opted by corporate interests to be used against the people.
Will anyone ever learn that power should not be concentrated in government hands?
If socialist policies don't fix everything, we'll try again. And again.
Over and over and over, never stopping, regardless of how many people are hurt with each attempt, climbing a mountain of misery toward an always elusive utopia.
Name me one complex problem that was made better by doing nothing about it?
It's not society this time. The sickness here is all in the government schools.
But remember this: even though government schools do a bad job of teaching children in poor neighborhoods, we can't have non-government schools. Because poor kids wouldn't get a good education with non-government schools.
That's not the enlightened view. Everything that goes wrong is always someone else's fault. It's the #1 Truth of progressive thinking. Poor people are poor because someone else made them poor. If socialist policies don't fix everything, it's because someone else interfered. If all the someone elses could just be burned or imprisoned or gassed or reeducated, society's problems could finally be solved and progressive paradise would be achieved.
Slashdot Mirror
You're continuing to change the subject further and further away from the original post I was responding to. I'm not arguing everything in the world. I'm arguing against absolutist, purity-based solutions and in favor of rational cost vs. benefit analysis instead.
Kyoto wasn't a cost/benefit analysis.
The most recent IPCC suggests the costs of climate change will be small. A cost/benefit analysis will be important to avoid needless harm.
He didn't say "at any cost", he said "possible" which implies there are things to be considered and a chance that there may not be a reasonable justification.
He didn't address "cost" at all. That's the problem. Environmental extremists don't care how many people their plans will hurt.
The solution to "the tragedy of the commons" isn't "as little as possible" grazing -- everyone goes hungry while the sacred, off-limits grass grows long and the commons grazing area becomes a wilderness. Rather than adhering to dogmatic prohibitions, the solution is to make rational tradeoffs to maximize the benefit for people.
Pollution makes people ill. You can see it happening a lot in poor countries, where lack of proper waste disposal brings a lot of health problems.
But greenhouse gas pollution doesn't make anyone ill. So people in poor countries should focus on solving pollution problems that are making them ill. They shouldn't waste resources on greenhouse gas "pollution". They should also focus on growing their economies, so they're no longer as poor, so they can afford to solve all the pollution problems that are making them ill.
Where did he say anything about "the tragedy of the commons"?
He said pollute "as little as possible". That's a quasi-religious purity standard. A non-religious, rational standard for "pollution" would examine tradeoffs: What are the costs and benefits of burning fossil fuels vs. the alternatives? Why can't we use reason to choose what we do rather than environmental dogma?
No, not really. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with that comment. Which part sounds religious? Is it because I think poor people shouldn't be made even poorer for the sake of environmental righteousness?
It's not a rich/poor thing. Don't make it into one.
Environmentalism is for rich people. Poor people have to struggle just to get by. They don't have extra resources to devote to purity-for-purity's-sake. And when they do get enough of a surplus to afford to care for the environment, they need to choose based on what will benefit them -- it's clean drinking water, basic sanitation and air that's healthy to breathe, not "these guys have this scary computer model that predicts problems 100 years from now".
Telling people not to pollute at all is telling people to be poorer. Very rich people can afford to be a little poorer. Most of the rest of the world can't.
So you're saying everyone who isn't rich enough to always choose the least-pollution option is a "parasite"? That's 95+% of the world's population.
Pollution.
The simple goal should be to spew as little as possible, regardless of the potential issues.
Survival is the simple goal for most people. After that rational people seek comfort, security, longevity and prosperity for themselves and their families.
On the other hand, some religious sects value various forms of purity ahead of comfort, security, longevity, and prosperity. Wanting "as little as possible" pollution is more-or-less a religious attitude.
A less environmentally religious person might ask: "In what way does this pollution affect my (and my family's, and my neighbors') survival, comfort, security, longevity, and prosperity? What are the tradeoffs? How do I know for sure?"
How about left-liberal people who believe themselves to be tolerant using skin-color-based slurs?
Hockey stick.
Environmentalist narcissism dividend. Plus extremely rich people like Al Gore get to profit by selling you carbon credits and other stuff you don't want but will be forced to buy.
How are you spending your cut of the peace dividend, BTW? I'm pretty sure my peace dividend check got lost in the mail.
a gun that might not fire.
Sounds like a good gun for the police to use. Get back to us when every police officer in the country has one of these and is forbidden to use a traditional weapon.
Comcast doesn't own Fox News. Comcast owns MSNBC.
None of the cable providers own Fox News. Except for broadcast TV (which is off-topic), Fox News is independent of any regulated industry and News Corp. is not seeking merger approval. Any discussion of Fox News is off topic. Also, unlike MSNBC, Fox News is not friendly to the Obama Administration. So what's the point of bringing them up? To scratch the itch of Fox-News-haters?
The fact is, these corporations shower money onto both sides. When people stop framing the problem as "left vs. right", and start framing it as "Corps+Pols vs. the Rest of Us", then maybe we'll see something happen. Until then, you're part of the problem.
I guess that make you the problem then. I didn't mention any political parties. I didn't mention left vs right at all. You did. My post is exactly "Corps+Pols vs. the Rest of Us". The partisan talk is all you.
The US approach: cozy up to the guys in charge of regulating you. Contribute to their campaigns and run a 24-hour propaganda network for their benefit (MSNBC). Then they'll allow you to do whatever you want.
They told me this would happen if I voted for President McCain. And they were right!
So instead of choosing smaller government overlords or bigger government overlords, let's just not have any level of government control most of the things in our lives.
But if there has to be government control, then it should be as local as possible so it's easier to escape by just moving away.
So... can we have less government power over everything in everyone's life then? Since it ends up being used against us by Washington insiders...?
Government agencies regard the people as a rancher regards his cattle.
People are told to hate corporations and give the government more power. That power gets co-opted by corporate interests to be used against the people.
Will anyone ever learn that power should not be concentrated in government hands?
Biofuels are about government subsidies and nothing more. All the talk about biofuels and the environment is just to trick the rubes.
If socialist policies don't fix everything, we'll try again. And again.
Over and over and over, never stopping, regardless of how many people are hurt with each attempt, climbing a mountain of misery toward an always elusive utopia.
Name me one complex problem that was made better by doing nothing about it?
The evils of alcohol vs. prohibition.
It's not society this time. The sickness here is all in the government schools.
But remember this: even though government schools do a bad job of teaching children in poor neighborhoods, we can't have non-government schools. Because poor kids wouldn't get a good education with non-government schools.
That's not the enlightened view. Everything that goes wrong is always someone else's fault. It's the #1 Truth of progressive thinking. Poor people are poor because someone else made them poor. If socialist policies don't fix everything, it's because someone else interfered. If all the someone elses could just be burned or imprisoned or gassed or reeducated, society's problems could finally be solved and progressive paradise would be achieved.