That's like being bitten by a snake. I do not turn around and reason with the snake. I cut its head off.
Yes, we should NEVER reason with people, only chop their heads off. Perhaps understanding WHY 9/11 happened would have been a good thing, it would have probably have been better to do that before ensuring that more people want to blow us up.
snakes != collections of people
I might remind you that the "intellectual classes" are the FIRST people who are off'd after a military coup. Not because of their intelligence, but because they are quick and easy prey who only realize their mistake when it's too late. Stalin called them "useful idiots." OTOH, those so-called "reptilian flight or fight" instincts have a lot to be said for and have kept our butts alive for millions of years.
Anti-intellectual movements FTW! Look what electing a moron (which is the opposite of intellectual) got us. I don't want "folk" running our country, folk are ignorant, superstitious, illiterate, yokels, with no ability to reason in advance, or ponder consequences of their actions.
No one in power should be common. My experience with the common, non-educated, man is not encouraging.
The other basic problem is that I have never met a former black man, on the other hand, I have met many former gays.
Micheal Jackson?
Seriously though, I think we disagree much less than it seems. I just don't think the government should ever regulate people based on life-style choices (if harmless), nor restrict them from anything.
4. The you was not you specific but the general you. Dissent is not unpatriotic. Dissent is inherently patriotic
Well, one problem is that CO2 hysteria meets nuclear hysteria. It's just never going to happen.
Sad, but probably true. Or true until the Boomers die off, at least, since more recent generations don't have the Red Threat, Hiroshima/Nagasaki, and Chernobyl hanging over their heads quite as much.
The fear of everything radiation related is burned into societies consciousness never mind the fact that residents near coal plants have higher exposure to radioactive elements than ones living near nuclear plant.
Which is the one shame of, as you call it, "CO2 hysteria", we're ignoring other bad bits of current fossil fuel energy productions. Pollution is a general problem, the possibility of anthropogenic warming is just a specific within the larger issue. Thanks to the hysteria bit, we are missing the forest for the trees.
People there can, on average, hardly afford energy, transportation AND food so for them, any increase in price through regulation will have much harsher consquences and might even choke their development.
More research, development, and deployment will bring down costs. With lower costs these things will slowly become affordable to emerging economies. The first world is always where things get developed, and cheapened, before moving to poorer places.
With China though, I don't think that switching infrastructure is as big an issue as people think. They are, afterall, rebuilding a FULL city of 7 million+ people just for the Olympics. They have money to burn.
recognize you agree with me on ethanol but I see a larger problem: this ill seems to be only manageable though state intervention
Probably true, but most "big" issues are. The government serves to organize us, and (in an ideal world) facilitate our goals as a nation, so I don't see this as a necessarily terrible thing, with correct checks on government misuse and abuse.
I have nothing against the people (via the government) forcing faceless corporations from acting responsibly. If we can cope with this on an individual scale (crime, incarceration, etc...), why is it so hard to see the same issues on a large scale?
Admittedly I find my self in a different camp. I think that prison should be a terrible place that no one wants to go to under any circumstances. If it is to serve as a deterrent to crime it must be so. However, as it tends to be the case that people don't go from "no crime" to "big crime" it might be acceptable to have something less horrible, and more educational, for people who commit such lesser crimes. The goal being to interrupt the cycle before they become hardened criminals. The price for creating such a system would be that for those who commit the big crimes, prison should be terrible.
I doubt anyone will ever see prison as a desirable place, no matter how much we switch the emphasis to keeping folks out of it. Well I suppose if they offered stable broadband, a nice TV/surround sound system, and steak and beer, it might compete, but I don't see this coming (or desirable). The basic nature of prison is pretty terrible, the suspension of rights.
Most minor crimes shouldn't be jailable, or at least as jailable, as they are now. Do we seriously need to waste our tax dollars on scores of silly potheads, or other minor drug offenses? But having sensible laws are a completely different thing (and probably impossible)... I've always been a fan of making some form of legislation that says "Congress shall be forced to remove 40% of all laws", just to make things a bit more sensable again, and perhaps make them focus on priorities a bit more (crimes against people>crimes against property> everything else).
As for the deterrence factor, I'm not 100% sure it is. Most criminals are... I hate to say it... to dumb to really expect consequences, hence being a criminal in the first place. I'm guessing enforcement is a bigger deterrent, than the incarceration bit.
I can understand why this would be a source of depression. It is how the world is though. It would be nice if everyone could get along and no one felt the need to steal or harm another. I fear that even if we had a society with near infinite wealth and prosperity, there would still be those who are compelled to steal, to rape, to murder. After all, some are virtually born criminals.
It does seem a common thread. We really aren't biologically cut out of large societies, it seems. Your right though, with infinite resources, there will always be people who want more for less effort, and people who want instant gratification. We'll never remove it, but bringing it down a bit would be satisfactory.
One could also say that a computer in the wrong hands can create a lot of trouble. Just because no one has figured out how to kill or hurt large numbers of people using one, not counting inspiring people through writing, doesn't mean they won't.
I'm guessing the difference is the utility. A computer (or pen, or gun, even) serves other purposes than just killing people, while a grenade serves only this purpose. Though I suppose they might make good (albeit dangerous) door stops, and paper weights.
1. Gays do not need special protections under the law.
They wouldn't be getting anything special, just something everyone else has had for years. Exceptions are okay when someone is being excluded arbitrarily (see civil rights, and americans with disabilities acts).
2. Gays should be allowed to have civil unions. I make a distinction here between marriage (a religious event) and the civil union (at the court house). IF a church wants to marry gays . . . fine.
Why should such a distinction be made? It isn't true for anyone else, so why single out one minority and make it so?
I have a hard time seeing any reason to actually care about gay people striding into churches, and courts, and getting married at will. And have yet to hear a single excuse against it that actually makes sense. It really can only have roots in homophobia and religious intolerance, neither of which should be the basis for law.
3. Likewise if someone wants to have a religious marriage and marry several spouses . . . fine. Read the Fundie Mormons in TX. If 10 women want to marry the same person . . . I want the government out of my bedroom.
If no other abuses are going on, I agree. The Fundies in TX (originally from northern Arizona, and Utah) were guilty of a bit more than just polygamy, though.
Of course how can you 'support the troops' and degrade them at every turn?
When have I degraded them? My version of anti-war sits squarely on the policy makers, and them abusing the troops for their own gain. I got called "antiamerican" for thinking it shameful that our troops didn't have bullet proof vests.
One of my friends finance's just returned from Iraq, and told many patriotic stories of having to barter, in the streets, for handgun ammo, and how non-combat troops got supplies, while those in the fields didn't even have grenades. I don't see how finding this deplorable, is bad. Nor do I see how wanting them home safe, and not fighting a mere political war is in anyway bad, as well. Fighting this kind of war is not their job.
About half of my friends are either on active duty, or retired, I support them with rounds of beer whenever they are on leave.
Find the degradation of our troops someplace above, please. This "support our troops" thing is generally bandied about as a way to silence all dissent as unpatriotic.
The short term cost imposed by subsidies and regulation could well be very much above the long term cost of global warming were it to happen. The "green industry" is a common fallacy that was already unmasked by Frederik Bastiat in his essay about the broken window fallacy. The capital that will be tied up into ending oil dependence at our level of technology (no viable substitutes) can not be used for anything else
You don't have to do something huge and drastic, though. Some small steps would be nice, you don't have to destroy the full fossil fuel industry, and you especially don't have to do it immediately. I'm an "eco moderate", not an "eco warrior", so I'm sure some will find even this compromise unacceptable, but they are a lunatic fringe. As are, in my opinion, people who say we should do nothing.
Slowly switching over to nuclear, redirecting federal research money, enforcing existing EPA standards (while sensibly ramping them up over a decade or two), slowly increasing out renewable infrastructures (solar, wind, tidal), and slowly rolling out California like vehicle standards. All of these can be done at minimal costs.
There really is no excuse for pure inaction.
An example of our time is the rising cost of food due to ethanol subsidies. A field used to produce ethanol can not produce food at the same time.
The current ethanol schemes are dumb, full stop. Sadly they have very little to do with global warming, and a lot to do with agribusiness lobbyists. Even with good ethanol production, they ignore the fact that it causes the same amount of emissions thanks to production, and we lack local infrastructure to actually make it viable far from the grainbelt.
It MIGHT be useful when we get switch grass working, or harvest biproduct cellulose processing, neither of which compete with food production (which is DAMN stupid, IMO).
You said yourself "more jobs" = better. Well Moving 30% of Los Angeles around will certainly provide jobs
But who wants them?
It's late, thats my flippant answer. Take that.:)
Seriously though, I don't deny you scenario, it is possible. I'm not sure on the probability though, and I'm not sure what other negative consequences would result, nor their probabilities. I'll continue my erring on the side of caution, since I don't think there is any real drawbacks to it. And I will continue voting for reasonable legislation to curb greenhouse gases, and pollution in general. Notice the use of the term reasonable, I don't think we should outlaw fossil fuels tomorrow, or ban cars, or such, that is a little extreme, but perhaps curbing them slowly isn't a bad idea either.
I follow Aristotle's virtue of Temperance (or moderation) in all things, including the hip issues of the time.
How so, he's taking a stand for something he believes in. I'm sure even he knows it is nothing more than a token gesture, but it still is an important gesture, and signals that he is doing more than the rest of the democrats, who were largly elected to FIX GW's mess.
Impeachment would also be important, since it would tell presidents that they aren't allowed to ruin the office, and disrespect the law to the extent of Bush. Perhaps it would put an end to this idiotic idea of the "imperial presidency", and the myriad attempts to abuse the War Powers clause in the name of control and tyranny.
I can never hold the speaking of ones conscience against anyone. If you can, your the one I feel sorry for.
Man did I get sick of this in the primaries. Seeing a UFO has NOTHING to do with your ability to serve in office, have qualified opinions, be credible, or even be rational. I've seen UFOs TWICE (the so-called Phoenix Lights), but this does not mean I beleive in pseudoscientific little green men. UFO stands for "unidentified flying object", not "flying saucer full of little green Aliens who want Stephen Speilburg to pay them royalties". Unidentified means... well... YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS! There are many things that fit this, like the green stuff in the back of my fridge.
It was the dumbest attempt at swaying the public I've ever seen from the media. Before the democratic primary even started the media mentioned Hillary/Obama 10 times a day, Edwards/Richardson once a day, and Kucinich perhaps once a week, if even, and only in the context of seeing aliens. When at the time only Edwards, Richardson, and Kucinich were acutally anti-war, and had strong positions on any issue. The media was in favor of the oatmeal democrats, though, since they are non-threatening, and 2 dimensional.
The only two people in congress worth their salt are Kucinich, and Feingold, and Ron Paul (McCain would have been on the list previous to 2004), since they have principles, and are genuinely willing to stand for something even if it isn't popular.
I don't agree with any of them 100%, but I respect them much more the the body of congress critters.
"China is drilling off the shore of Florida, that should be OUR OIL". Because, you have somehow taken the fact that the straights of florida are 90 miles wide, and HALF of them are legally within the territoy of Cuba. 45 miles is ours, and 45 miles is theirs. Cuba has leased out the dilling rights to a company from China. Whats the problem with that? If the world oil market global as you say it is, then it doesnt really matter who is drilling it, as it will be sold to the person who pays market value for it.
The obvious, and depressingly true, answers is; "so go to war with Cuba". Which I think will probably happen when the Castros collectively croak. We're going to make Cuba another Haiti, in the name of "democracy" of course.
I'm getting sick of this definition of "democracy", last I checked it had nothing to do with American style capitalism, or being friendly to us. It really shouldn't, either. For one these countries deserve sovereignty meaning the choice to manage their own economy, and be friendly with who they please. Also being friendly with bullies, isn't quite in the spirit of reciprocity.
And this reason is why American politics are a steaming pile of shit, and that we're rapidly becoming what I'd consider "bad guy" in international politics, and probably history.
I know your probably being flippant, but many people believe this stuff, and worse, think it is insightful political discourse. See the slagging of Dennis Kucinich above, for further example, where the poster just says "If you like him, your a moron1!!!one1"
But then again some people also think that making sure Gay's don't have equal rights, and women can't have abortions, and evolution is banned, is more important than fiscal policy, or international relations.
But then again a majority of us confuse "supporting our troops" with being pro-war. Which is pretty ironic.
Nature has tried to instill this balance in all animals, it's called "curiosity" vs. "willpower". The need to learn vs. the need to do. Ironic that if you rethink yourself too much you sometimes end up right back where you were, but not always. There are always ways to grow.
I went to college for philosophy, I'm used to being proactively confused on most issues. But what you say is correct.
I've noticed that most humans are by nature "conservative", we act as if the status quo is eternal, and that present conditions will last forever. This seems to bite us in the ass every couple generations. I think we are generally constructed for much simpler times than we live in now.
Optimistically, looking at the environmental movement, a whole lot of things have changed in the short period of time since its official birth (usually pegged at 1962, with the publication of Silent Spring). 46 years isn't much in the scheme of things. Everything just feels stagnant because the human scale doesn't... well... scale well.
The only thing that scares me about the possibility of anthropogenic warming is that by the time it effects us, it will be too late. We are least responsive to non-immediate threats.
Evolution isn't dependent on religious dogma. Creationism (or more dishonestly Intelligent Design) is based wholly on the Judeo-Christian religious tradition. According to the IDers logic, we should also teach ALL creation myths in school. I happen to agree, as long as they all are in a comparative religion class, with each religion getting equal share, and with none advertised as truth.
Evolution isn't taught as a "fact", it is taught as a theory with factual components. The religious agenda refuses to accept the meaning of the term theory. A theory is a reasoned narrative that is the best (current) narrative for a network of related observations (facts). A theory should be parsimonious, and explain the facts better than rivals. So far, evolution doesn't have any valid, scientific, rivals.
I learned this in grade-school: Science != truth.
Science (i.e. following a method) belongs in science courses, while religious statements belong in church, around the family table, and in humanities courses.
The article is a good read. It basically covers how incredibly narrow the limits are concerning the laws of nature. If any one of them was just an astronomically small amount different, then the Universe would not exist as we know it, and certainly life would not form. Which leads your budding C/ID believer to ask, "what are the odds of this happening by chance?"
But, if these constants are needed for life to form, then if they didn't happen there would be no sentient life here to ask about them. Conversely, if there is sentient life, then these constants must exist. Ala weak >anthropic principle.
Also "a minute chance" != impossible. Just because there is a one in a million chance of something happening doesn't mean it is impossible, especially at really large (universal) scales.
Thanks for the good debate. I enjoyed it, AND (which is more rare) found it educational. Your point about a registry trumped me a bit, I'm going to have to return to my cave and ponder this a bit more, I think. I don't agree, but can't quite quantify why, so I don't feel right arguing about it.
Grenades, we're going to continue a mild disagreement on.
We can't say who doesn't belong in society? If we can't say that, then we can't really ever put people in prison or execute them, can we? We do, so clearly we can say that. The only real point to that section is that the vast majority of people can be trusted with arms just fine. After all, we trust them with far more dangerous items.
I mistated a bit. The only real cases when we deem that people truly don't belong to society is life without parole, and death. In most cases we put them away for a bit, then give them a trial time before allowing them full rights.
As for education, you are spot on. I generally feel rather trite, since I bandy education about as the solution to 99% of the problems in the world, but sadly I feel this is accurate. Prison should also shift its emphasis from punishment to rehabilitation, to help remove some of the revolving door problem, and habituated criminal amplification (to make it sound as cumbersome as possible).
Another avenue of attack is for the public to stand up to the criminal element and let them know we aren't going to take it anymore. Some say that we will have the level of crime we are willing to tolerate. There is truth in that.
It would be nice if we could shed the shackles of classism and apathy and let this happen. Sadly we believe in the "criminal" element (i.e. inevitable), rather than the "human element" (i.e. a choice, and preventable).
As for the amount we're willing to tolerate, I find this true, but still a source of depression. We should always expect the highest of standards from everyone, and enforce that.
So let's cut this ridiculous argument about Pascal's wager. You don't believe it, nor does anyone else.
Actually Pascal's Wager fails mostly on the religious count, it still is a valid form of cost analysis on other fronts. It fails to account for "Faith", since I'm guessing any god worth her salt would be more open to intention and belief over mere motions and image of belief. When not appied to mythical omnipotent entities, it works fine, as it is the standard "what the the potential benefits and costs of an array of actions".
GW (or even AGW) exists, and has a positive influence, therefore doing stuff has both a short term cost and a massive long term cost (reducing CO2, if it works, will reduce agricultural harvests for example, it is not really studied how big this effect is. Same with temperature : higher temps -> larger harvest. How much larger ? We certainly could use more food)
Hmm... If this is true (which it might be for specific regions) then we would also have to account for the LOSS of land along the coasts, and the mass displacements of populations because of this. Even if it increased the mean amount of agricultural land, it would decrease the mean amount of livable land, so it might break even. This is ignoring other effects such as desertification, prolonged drought conditions, and less predicable weather patterns/altered seasonal situations.
The costs are morally unacceptable... e.g. biofuels are causing famines. Even if biofuels is done with non-food crops, they will obviously still compete for land, brain power, research funds and well, basic manual labor with food crops, therefore they are no solution.
Biofuels are just one solution, and currently badly implemented thanks to farm lobbies. Switchgrass is a good solution, when it becomes more developed, since it isn't a food crop, and wouldn't compete with them. As would cellulose biproducts of food products. Ethanol, as it stands, is probably worse than fossil fuels on all levels, especially in the US. We also ignore moving more towards Nuclear energy, and conventional alternative renewable energy sources, to fuel electric cars.
More jobs, though, is hardly an argument against anything, ESPECIALLY in todays economy. Oh noes, more jobs and research opportunities, who will ever save us from that? In the worse case scenario, we have plenty of people down south willing to help us with our switchgrass ethanol harvests for minimum pay and benefits.
You also ignore the benefit of moving away from having to buy our #1 resource from hostile theocracies that support terrorism. And the fact that oil is becoming scarcer, and thus will lead to increasing amounts of instability/war. Moving away from fossil fuels is a GOOD THING even if there is no "GW" or "AGW", as you put it.
There are thousands of other possibilities you don't consider, and if you consider them all equal you're just a nihilist (which is exactly what most AGW nutcases are)
Er... Not all things can be taken equally at all times. Some things are not credible. I'd watch who you call liberal with that relativistic view. I do love some peoples view of relativism, since it never really applies to them, since they are 100% correct, and no other view or evidence is worthy of consideration.
This global warming debate is a war between two fixed, unchangeable, and utterly closed dogmas. It really is pointless. I'll leave the science and policy to the scientists, not to the pundits or bought-and-paid for politicians. Why bother even entering a debate if you are 100% assured of your certainty?
Let's also not kid ourselves : you support AGW because it's socially popular, even if it goes against science.
I'm impervious to your ad hominem and straw men. You apparently didn't read the bit where I said I'm agnostic on the anthropogenic bit, but prefer erring on the side of caution. A majority of climatologists agree that there is warming, I would consider
It is simple irrefutable physics. The fact that human emissions will trap heat is absolutely undeniable. It's like we're spraying water around, and some people are denialists of "human caused wetness".
When politicians and mega-corps are involved, EVERYTHING is refutable. Look at the sugar lobby trying to silence studies saying that sugar isn't good for you in the quantities we consume since they are "junk science".
The government, and the corporations that own it, are sick of science saying things against them, and their products. Science should be more like good media, it should be fair and balanced, with good polar opposing view points. Its better for the bottom li^W^W the common good.
I really wish the liberal/conservative ad homimem trolls would die, or at least realize that discrediting as liberal or conservative is moronic, invalid, and as bad as calling all of X ethnic group lazy, stupid, slobs.
Summary: They disagree with me, and therefore can't be called scientists.
I always wonder about the warming deniers. I, myself, and a anthropogenic warming agnostic, but support measures to reduce carbon (and other greenhouse) emissions, just to error on the side of caution.
A) If they are wrong, and we do nothing, then there is no cost. B) If they are wrong, and we do something, then there is a short term economic cost. C) If they are right, and we do nothing, then there is a HUGE long term economic, and human cost (not to mention extinctions, and other esoteric ecological costs) D) If they are right, and we do something, then there is a short term economic cost, and minimal long term costs.
Think of it as the ecological Pascal's Wager, the possible benefits of belief outweigh the possible benefits of denial.
The short term costs may or may not be true, since we fail to consider the investment into new "green" infrastructure, and manufacturing, and the capitol gained from new innovations. We'd be creating a new sector of economy, therefore the impact might be minimized.
I guess I don't belong here, since I am one of the few Americans who beleive in short-term sacrifices for long term gains, and actually think that the weight of the well-being of future generation outweigh my own. In other words, I'm not a self-justifying egotistical greedy SOB.
As for the ZOMG ILLUMINATI!!!111one! problem, I'll leave that to the tin-foil hat club. Perhaps the Time Cube will save us from the Zionist Illuminati Bilderberg Liberal Right-Wing Catholic Commie Global Conspiracy (ZIBLRCCG for short).
This is the classical ad hominem attack against those who see the liberal bias of the stated universities and "intellectuals", "scientists" and other people.:)
You, sir, are wrong. It is a well known fact that everyone whose opinion differs from mine must be biased. I on the other hand, am not. Disagreeing with me will prove that you are a biased intellectual elitist.
In all seriousness, I prefer information from scientists, intellectuals, and elitists, over uneducated lay people. I guess I, too, am an elitist snob for saying so.
Whatever you call it, it is forbidden by law, so stop doing it.
For all the arguments against piracy, this is by far the weakest. Just because something is illegal, doesn't mean it is morally or ethically wrong. There is no reason to follow unjust laws, and one can make the case that breaking them is more ethical than following them.
For example, is it really unethical to freely get music whose original author is dead, or no longer holds the rights to? Is me downloading Ella Fitzgerald tracks ethically wrong, even if it is illegal?
But these aren't universal metrics, so you can't make a raw score that would actually indicate the objective quality of the game.
For instance, I have a friend that plays WoW on the minimum graphics setting, not because of hardware limitations, but because "he justs like pixels". Sometimes I like games with really simple controls (like Diablo II). Sometimes, as well, I like really simple game play (Tetris).
Polish, I'd agree, might be universal, since bugs are never desirable.
Length of play is subjective too. In several recent RPGs (all of Xenosaga, FFIX, etc...) the game place was TOO long for anyone with a life. And sometimes I like a quick game, really quick, just to waste some time at the dentists office or such.
Online play is a minus for many people too. Online content might be nice, but there still are skads of people out there with dial-up who might be frustrated. I've been getting more and more annoyed with forced online aspects, since I generally play games to ESCAPE from people, especially the average gamer on Xbox Live, or WoW.
Made short, you still can't derive a simple number score from these factors, that will actually say anything about the game. I prefer longish reviews (2-3 pages) talking about the plot, the game play, and just pretty much the view of the games. I also generally prefer the user reviews over the "official" one, even if they often scale higher.
Slashdot Mirror
That's like being bitten by a snake. I do not turn around and reason with the snake. I cut its head off.
Yes, we should NEVER reason with people, only chop their heads off. Perhaps understanding WHY 9/11 happened would have been a good thing, it would have probably have been better to do that before ensuring that more people want to blow us up.
snakes != collections of people
I might remind you that the "intellectual classes" are the FIRST people who are off'd after a military coup. Not because of their intelligence, but because they are quick and easy prey who only realize their mistake when it's too late. Stalin called them "useful idiots." OTOH, those so-called "reptilian flight or fight" instincts have a lot to be said for and have kept our butts alive for millions of years.
Anti-intellectual movements FTW! Look what electing a moron (which is the opposite of intellectual) got us. I don't want "folk" running our country, folk are ignorant, superstitious, illiterate, yokels, with no ability to reason in advance, or ponder consequences of their actions.
No one in power should be common. My experience with the common, non-educated, man is not encouraging.
Your Wall of Text crits Sensibility by over 9000
Sensibility has died.
You receive 3 experience.
The other basic problem is that I have never met a former black man, on the other hand, I have met many former gays.
Micheal Jackson?
Seriously though, I think we disagree much less than it seems. I just don't think the government should ever regulate people based on life-style choices (if harmless), nor restrict them from anything.
4. The you was not you specific but the general you. Dissent is not unpatriotic. Dissent is inherently patriotic
See sig.
Well, one problem is that CO2 hysteria meets nuclear hysteria. It's just never going to happen.
Sad, but probably true. Or true until the Boomers die off, at least, since more recent generations don't have the Red Threat, Hiroshima/Nagasaki, and Chernobyl hanging over their heads quite as much.
The fear of everything radiation related is burned into societies consciousness never mind the fact that residents near coal plants have higher exposure to radioactive elements than ones living near nuclear plant.
Which is the one shame of, as you call it, "CO2 hysteria", we're ignoring other bad bits of current fossil fuel energy productions. Pollution is a general problem, the possibility of anthropogenic warming is just a specific within the larger issue. Thanks to the hysteria bit, we are missing the forest for the trees.
People there can, on average, hardly afford energy, transportation AND food so for them, any increase in price through regulation will have much harsher consquences and might even choke their development.
More research, development, and deployment will bring down costs. With lower costs these things will slowly become affordable to emerging economies. The first world is always where things get developed, and cheapened, before moving to poorer places.
With China though, I don't think that switching infrastructure is as big an issue as people think. They are, afterall, rebuilding a FULL city of 7 million+ people just for the Olympics. They have money to burn.
recognize you agree with me on ethanol but I see a larger problem: this ill seems to be only manageable though state intervention
Probably true, but most "big" issues are. The government serves to organize us, and (in an ideal world) facilitate our goals as a nation, so I don't see this as a necessarily terrible thing, with correct checks on government misuse and abuse.
I have nothing against the people (via the government) forcing faceless corporations from acting responsibly. If we can cope with this on an individual scale (crime, incarceration, etc...), why is it so hard to see the same issues on a large scale?
Admittedly I find my self in a different camp. I think that prison should be a terrible place that no one wants to go to under any circumstances. If it is to serve as a deterrent to crime it must be so. However, as it tends to be the case that people don't go from "no crime" to "big crime" it might be acceptable to have something less horrible, and more educational, for people who commit such lesser crimes. The goal being to interrupt the cycle before they become hardened criminals. The price for creating such a system would be that for those who commit the big crimes, prison should be terrible.
I doubt anyone will ever see prison as a desirable place, no matter how much we switch the emphasis to keeping folks out of it. Well I suppose if they offered stable broadband, a nice TV/surround sound system, and steak and beer, it might compete, but I don't see this coming (or desirable). The basic nature of prison is pretty terrible, the suspension of rights.
Most minor crimes shouldn't be jailable, or at least as jailable, as they are now. Do we seriously need to waste our tax dollars on scores of silly potheads, or other minor drug offenses? But having sensible laws are a completely different thing (and probably impossible)... I've always been a fan of making some form of legislation that says "Congress shall be forced to remove 40% of all laws", just to make things a bit more sensable again, and perhaps make them focus on priorities a bit more (crimes against people>crimes against property> everything else).
As for the deterrence factor, I'm not 100% sure it is. Most criminals are... I hate to say it... to dumb to really expect consequences, hence being a criminal in the first place. I'm guessing enforcement is a bigger deterrent, than the incarceration bit.
I can understand why this would be a source of depression. It is how the world is though. It would be nice if everyone could get along and no one felt the need to steal or harm another. I fear that even if we had a society with near infinite wealth and prosperity, there would still be those who are compelled to steal, to rape, to murder. After all, some are virtually born criminals.
It does seem a common thread. We really aren't biologically cut out of large societies, it seems. Your right though, with infinite resources, there will always be people who want more for less effort, and people who want instant gratification. We'll never remove it, but bringing it down a bit would be satisfactory.
One could also say that a computer in the wrong hands can create a lot of trouble. Just because no one has figured out how to kill or hurt large numbers of people using one, not counting inspiring people through writing, doesn't mean they won't.
I'm guessing the difference is the utility. A computer (or pen, or gun, even) serves other purposes than just killing people, while a grenade serves only this purpose. Though I suppose they might make good (albeit dangerous) door stops, and paper weights.
1. Gays do not need special protections under the law.
They wouldn't be getting anything special, just something everyone else has had for years. Exceptions are okay when someone is being excluded arbitrarily (see civil rights, and americans with disabilities acts).
2. Gays should be allowed to have civil unions. I make a distinction here between marriage (a religious event) and the civil union (at the court house). IF a church wants to marry gays . . . fine.
Why should such a distinction be made? It isn't true for anyone else, so why single out one minority and make it so?
I have a hard time seeing any reason to actually care about gay people striding into churches, and courts, and getting married at will. And have yet to hear a single excuse against it that actually makes sense. It really can only have roots in homophobia and religious intolerance, neither of which should be the basis for law.
3. Likewise if someone wants to have a religious marriage and marry several spouses . . . fine. Read the Fundie Mormons in TX. If 10 women want to marry the same person . . . I want the government out of my bedroom.
If no other abuses are going on, I agree. The Fundies in TX (originally from northern Arizona, and Utah) were guilty of a bit more than just polygamy, though.
Of course how can you 'support the troops' and degrade them at every turn?
When have I degraded them? My version of anti-war sits squarely on the policy makers, and them abusing the troops for their own gain. I got called "antiamerican" for thinking it shameful that our troops didn't have bullet proof vests.
One of my friends finance's just returned from Iraq, and told many patriotic stories of having to barter, in the streets, for handgun ammo, and how non-combat troops got supplies, while those in the fields didn't even have grenades. I don't see how finding this deplorable, is bad. Nor do I see how wanting them home safe, and not fighting a mere political war is in anyway bad, as well. Fighting this kind of war is not their job.
About half of my friends are either on active duty, or retired, I support them with rounds of beer whenever they are on leave.
Find the degradation of our troops someplace above, please. This "support our troops" thing is generally bandied about as a way to silence all dissent as unpatriotic.
Amen.
The short term cost imposed by subsidies and regulation could well be very much above the long term cost of global warming were it to happen. The "green industry" is a common fallacy that was already unmasked by Frederik Bastiat in his essay about the broken window fallacy. The capital that will be tied up into ending oil dependence at our level of technology (no viable substitutes) can not be used for anything else
You don't have to do something huge and drastic, though. Some small steps would be nice, you don't have to destroy the full fossil fuel industry, and you especially don't have to do it immediately. I'm an "eco moderate", not an "eco warrior", so I'm sure some will find even this compromise unacceptable, but they are a lunatic fringe. As are, in my opinion, people who say we should do nothing.
Slowly switching over to nuclear, redirecting federal research money, enforcing existing EPA standards (while sensibly ramping them up over a decade or two), slowly increasing out renewable infrastructures (solar, wind, tidal), and slowly rolling out California like vehicle standards. All of these can be done at minimal costs.
There really is no excuse for pure inaction.
An example of our time is the rising cost of food due to ethanol subsidies. A field used to produce ethanol can not produce food at the same time.
The current ethanol schemes are dumb, full stop. Sadly they have very little to do with global warming, and a lot to do with agribusiness lobbyists. Even with good ethanol production, they ignore the fact that it causes the same amount of emissions thanks to production, and we lack local infrastructure to actually make it viable far from the grainbelt.
It MIGHT be useful when we get switch grass working, or harvest biproduct cellulose processing, neither of which compete with food production (which is DAMN stupid, IMO).
They would blend. :/
Corrected it for you.
You said yourself "more jobs" = better. Well Moving 30% of Los Angeles around will certainly provide jobs
:)
But who wants them?
It's late, thats my flippant answer. Take that.
Seriously though, I don't deny you scenario, it is possible. I'm not sure on the probability though, and I'm not sure what other negative consequences would result, nor their probabilities. I'll continue my erring on the side of caution, since I don't think there is any real drawbacks to it. And I will continue voting for reasonable legislation to curb greenhouse gases, and pollution in general. Notice the use of the term reasonable, I don't think we should outlaw fossil fuels tomorrow, or ban cars, or such, that is a little extreme, but perhaps curbing them slowly isn't a bad idea either.
I follow Aristotle's virtue of Temperance (or moderation) in all things, including the hip issues of the time.
How so, he's taking a stand for something he believes in. I'm sure even he knows it is nothing more than a token gesture, but it still is an important gesture, and signals that he is doing more than the rest of the democrats, who were largly elected to FIX GW's mess.
Impeachment would also be important, since it would tell presidents that they aren't allowed to ruin the office, and disrespect the law to the extent of Bush. Perhaps it would put an end to this idiotic idea of the "imperial presidency", and the myriad attempts to abuse the War Powers clause in the name of control and tyranny.
I can never hold the speaking of ones conscience against anyone. If you can, your the one I feel sorry for.
3: Look for UFO's
Man did I get sick of this in the primaries. Seeing a UFO has NOTHING to do with your ability to serve in office, have qualified opinions, be credible, or even be rational. I've seen UFOs TWICE (the so-called Phoenix Lights), but this does not mean I beleive in pseudoscientific little green men. UFO stands for "unidentified flying object", not "flying saucer full of little green Aliens who want Stephen Speilburg to pay them royalties". Unidentified means... well... YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS! There are many things that fit this, like the green stuff in the back of my fridge.
It was the dumbest attempt at swaying the public I've ever seen from the media. Before the democratic primary even started the media mentioned Hillary/Obama 10 times a day, Edwards/Richardson once a day, and Kucinich perhaps once a week, if even, and only in the context of seeing aliens. When at the time only Edwards, Richardson, and Kucinich were acutally anti-war, and had strong positions on any issue. The media was in favor of the oatmeal democrats, though, since they are non-threatening, and 2 dimensional.
The only two people in congress worth their salt are Kucinich, and Feingold, and Ron Paul (McCain would have been on the list previous to 2004), since they have principles, and are genuinely willing to stand for something even if it isn't popular.
I don't agree with any of them 100%, but I respect them much more the the body of congress critters.
"China is drilling off the shore of Florida, that should be OUR OIL". Because, you have somehow taken the fact that the straights of florida are 90 miles wide, and HALF of them are legally within the territoy of Cuba. 45 miles is ours, and 45 miles is theirs. Cuba has leased out the dilling rights to a company from China. Whats the problem with that? If the world oil market global as you say it is, then it doesnt really matter who is drilling it, as it will be sold to the person who pays market value for it.
The obvious, and depressingly true, answers is; "so go to war with Cuba". Which I think will probably happen when the Castros collectively croak. We're going to make Cuba another Haiti, in the name of "democracy" of course.
I'm getting sick of this definition of "democracy", last I checked it had nothing to do with American style capitalism, or being friendly to us. It really shouldn't, either. For one these countries deserve sovereignty meaning the choice to manage their own economy, and be friendly with who they please. Also being friendly with bullies, isn't quite in the spirit of reciprocity.
Follow the money
The oil companies, for some reason, are making record profit.
Just what do you think they are spending the money on?
Hookers and blow?
And this reason is why American politics are a steaming pile of shit, and that we're rapidly becoming what I'd consider "bad guy" in international politics, and probably history.
I know your probably being flippant, but many people believe this stuff, and worse, think it is insightful political discourse. See the slagging of Dennis Kucinich above, for further example, where the poster just says "If you like him, your a moron1!!!one1"
But then again some people also think that making sure Gay's don't have equal rights, and women can't have abortions, and evolution is banned, is more important than fiscal policy, or international relations.
But then again a majority of us confuse "supporting our troops" with being pro-war. Which is pretty ironic.
Nature has tried to instill this balance in all animals, it's called "curiosity" vs. "willpower". The need to learn vs. the need to do. Ironic that if you rethink yourself too much you sometimes end up right back where you were, but not always. There are always ways to grow.
I went to college for philosophy, I'm used to being proactively confused on most issues. But what you say is correct.
I've noticed that most humans are by nature "conservative", we act as if the status quo is eternal, and that present conditions will last forever. This seems to bite us in the ass every couple generations. I think we are generally constructed for much simpler times than we live in now.
Optimistically, looking at the environmental movement, a whole lot of things have changed in the short period of time since its official birth (usually pegged at 1962, with the publication of Silent Spring). 46 years isn't much in the scheme of things. Everything just feels stagnant because the human scale doesn't... well... scale well.
The only thing that scares me about the possibility of anthropogenic warming is that by the time it effects us, it will be too late. We are least responsive to non-immediate threats.
Evolution isn't dependent on religious dogma. Creationism (or more dishonestly Intelligent Design) is based wholly on the Judeo-Christian religious tradition. According to the IDers logic, we should also teach ALL creation myths in school. I happen to agree, as long as they all are in a comparative religion class, with each religion getting equal share, and with none advertised as truth.
Evolution isn't taught as a "fact", it is taught as a theory with factual components. The religious agenda refuses to accept the meaning of the term theory. A theory is a reasoned narrative that is the best (current) narrative for a network of related observations (facts). A theory should be parsimonious, and explain the facts better than rivals. So far, evolution doesn't have any valid, scientific, rivals.
I learned this in grade-school: Science != truth.
Science (i.e. following a method) belongs in science courses, while religious statements belong in church, around the family table, and in humanities courses.
The article is a good read. It basically covers how incredibly narrow the limits are concerning the laws of nature. If any one of them was just an astronomically small amount different, then the Universe would not exist as we know it, and certainly life would not form. Which leads your budding C/ID believer to ask, "what are the odds of this happening by chance?"
But, if these constants are needed for life to form, then if they didn't happen there would be no sentient life here to ask about them. Conversely, if there is sentient life, then these constants must exist. Ala weak >anthropic principle.
Also "a minute chance" != impossible. Just because there is a one in a million chance of something happening doesn't mean it is impossible, especially at really large (universal) scales.
Thanks for the good debate. I enjoyed it, AND (which is more rare) found it educational. Your point about a registry trumped me a bit, I'm going to have to return to my cave and ponder this a bit more, I think. I don't agree, but can't quite quantify why, so I don't feel right arguing about it.
Grenades, we're going to continue a mild disagreement on.
We can't say who doesn't belong in society? If we can't say that, then we can't really ever put people in prison or execute them, can we? We do, so clearly we can say that. The only real point to that section is that the vast majority of people can be trusted with arms just fine. After all, we trust them with far more dangerous items.
I mistated a bit. The only real cases when we deem that people truly don't belong to society is life without parole, and death. In most cases we put them away for a bit, then give them a trial time before allowing them full rights.
As for education, you are spot on. I generally feel rather trite, since I bandy education about as the solution to 99% of the problems in the world, but sadly I feel this is accurate. Prison should also shift its emphasis from punishment to rehabilitation, to help remove some of the revolving door problem, and habituated criminal amplification (to make it sound as cumbersome as possible).
Another avenue of attack is for the public to stand up to the criminal element and let them know we aren't going to take it anymore. Some say that we will have the level of crime we are willing to tolerate. There is truth in that.
It would be nice if we could shed the shackles of classism and apathy and let this happen. Sadly we believe in the "criminal" element (i.e. inevitable), rather than the "human element" (i.e. a choice, and preventable).
As for the amount we're willing to tolerate, I find this true, but still a source of depression. We should always expect the highest of standards from everyone, and enforce that.
If wishes were horses...
So let's cut this ridiculous argument about Pascal's wager. You don't believe it, nor does anyone else.
... e.g. biofuels are causing famines. Even if biofuels is done with non-food crops, they will obviously still compete for land, brain power, research funds and well, basic manual labor with food crops, therefore they are no solution.
Actually Pascal's Wager fails mostly on the religious count, it still is a valid form of cost analysis on other fronts. It fails to account for "Faith", since I'm guessing any god worth her salt would be more open to intention and belief over mere motions and image of belief. When not appied to mythical omnipotent entities, it works fine, as it is the standard "what the the potential benefits and costs of an array of actions".
GW (or even AGW) exists, and has a positive influence, therefore doing stuff has both a short term cost and a massive long term cost (reducing CO2, if it works, will reduce agricultural harvests for example, it is not really studied how big this effect is. Same with temperature : higher temps -> larger harvest. How much larger ? We certainly could use more food)
Hmm... If this is true (which it might be for specific regions) then we would also have to account for the LOSS of land along the coasts, and the mass displacements of populations because of this. Even if it increased the mean amount of agricultural land, it would decrease the mean amount of livable land, so it might break even. This is ignoring other effects such as desertification, prolonged drought conditions, and less predicable weather patterns/altered seasonal situations.
The costs are morally unacceptable
Biofuels are just one solution, and currently badly implemented thanks to farm lobbies. Switchgrass is a good solution, when it becomes more developed, since it isn't a food crop, and wouldn't compete with them. As would cellulose biproducts of food products. Ethanol, as it stands, is probably worse than fossil fuels on all levels, especially in the US. We also ignore moving more towards Nuclear energy, and conventional alternative renewable energy sources, to fuel electric cars.
More jobs, though, is hardly an argument against anything, ESPECIALLY in todays economy. Oh noes, more jobs and research opportunities, who will ever save us from that? In the worse case scenario, we have plenty of people down south willing to help us with our switchgrass ethanol harvests for minimum pay and benefits.
You also ignore the benefit of moving away from having to buy our #1 resource from hostile theocracies that support terrorism. And the fact that oil is becoming scarcer, and thus will lead to increasing amounts of instability/war. Moving away from fossil fuels is a GOOD THING even if there is no "GW" or "AGW", as you put it.
There are thousands of other possibilities you don't consider, and if you consider them all equal you're just a nihilist (which is exactly what most AGW nutcases are)
Er... Not all things can be taken equally at all times. Some things are not credible. I'd watch who you call liberal with that relativistic view. I do love some peoples view of relativism, since it never really applies to them, since they are 100% correct, and no other view or evidence is worthy of consideration.
This global warming debate is a war between two fixed, unchangeable, and utterly closed dogmas. It really is pointless. I'll leave the science and policy to the scientists, not to the pundits or bought-and-paid for politicians. Why bother even entering a debate if you are 100% assured of your certainty?
Let's also not kid ourselves : you support AGW because it's socially popular, even if it goes against science.
I'm impervious to your ad hominem and straw men. You apparently didn't read the bit where I said I'm agnostic on the anthropogenic bit, but prefer erring on the side of caution. A majority of climatologists agree that there is warming, I would consider
It is simple irrefutable physics. The fact that human emissions will trap heat is absolutely undeniable. It's like we're spraying water around, and some people are denialists of "human caused wetness".
When politicians and mega-corps are involved, EVERYTHING is refutable. Look at the sugar lobby trying to silence studies saying that sugar isn't good for you in the quantities we consume since they are "junk science".
The government, and the corporations that own it, are sick of science saying things against them, and their products. Science should be more like good media, it should be fair and balanced, with good polar opposing view points. Its better for the bottom li^W^W the common good.
I really wish the liberal/conservative ad homimem trolls would die, or at least realize that discrediting as liberal or conservative is moronic, invalid, and as bad as calling all of X ethnic group lazy, stupid, slobs.
Summary: They disagree with me, and therefore can't be called scientists.
I always wonder about the warming deniers. I, myself, and a anthropogenic warming agnostic, but support measures to reduce carbon (and other greenhouse) emissions, just to error on the side of caution.
A) If they are wrong, and we do nothing, then there is no cost.
B) If they are wrong, and we do something, then there is a short term economic cost.
C) If they are right, and we do nothing, then there is a HUGE long term economic, and human cost (not to mention extinctions, and other esoteric ecological costs)
D) If they are right, and we do something, then there is a short term economic cost, and minimal long term costs.
Think of it as the ecological Pascal's Wager, the possible benefits of belief outweigh the possible benefits of denial.
The short term costs may or may not be true, since we fail to consider the investment into new "green" infrastructure, and manufacturing, and the capitol gained from new innovations. We'd be creating a new sector of economy, therefore the impact might be minimized.
I guess I don't belong here, since I am one of the few Americans who beleive in short-term sacrifices for long term gains, and actually think that the weight of the well-being of future generation outweigh my own. In other words, I'm not a self-justifying egotistical greedy SOB.
As for the ZOMG ILLUMINATI!!!111one! problem, I'll leave that to the tin-foil hat club. Perhaps the Time Cube will save us from the Zionist Illuminati Bilderberg Liberal Right-Wing Catholic Commie Global Conspiracy (ZIBLRCCG for short).
This is the classical ad hominem attack against those who see the liberal bias of the stated universities and "intellectuals", "scientists" and other people. :)
You, sir, are wrong. It is a well known fact that everyone whose opinion differs from mine must be biased. I on the other hand, am not. Disagreeing with me will prove that you are a biased intellectual elitist.
In all seriousness, I prefer information from scientists, intellectuals, and elitists, over uneducated lay people. I guess I, too, am an elitist snob for saying so.
Whatever you call it, it is forbidden by law, so stop doing it.
For all the arguments against piracy, this is by far the weakest. Just because something is illegal, doesn't mean it is morally or ethically wrong. There is no reason to follow unjust laws, and one can make the case that breaking them is more ethical than following them.
For example, is it really unethical to freely get music whose original author is dead, or no longer holds the rights to? Is me downloading Ella Fitzgerald tracks ethically wrong, even if it is illegal?
But these aren't universal metrics, so you can't make a raw score that would actually indicate the objective quality of the game.
For instance, I have a friend that plays WoW on the minimum graphics setting, not because of hardware limitations, but because "he justs like pixels". Sometimes I like games with really simple controls (like Diablo II). Sometimes, as well, I like really simple game play (Tetris).
Polish, I'd agree, might be universal, since bugs are never desirable.
Length of play is subjective too. In several recent RPGs (all of Xenosaga, FFIX, etc...) the game place was TOO long for anyone with a life. And sometimes I like a quick game, really quick, just to waste some time at the dentists office or such.
Online play is a minus for many people too. Online content might be nice, but there still are skads of people out there with dial-up who might be frustrated. I've been getting more and more annoyed with forced online aspects, since I generally play games to ESCAPE from people, especially the average gamer on Xbox Live, or WoW.
Made short, you still can't derive a simple number score from these factors, that will actually say anything about the game. I prefer longish reviews (2-3 pages) talking about the plot, the game play, and just pretty much the view of the games. I also generally prefer the user reviews over the "official" one, even if they often scale higher.