So we use iron fertilization to create blooms in the ocean's dead zones (very cost effective). We seed the area with algae that have some kind of swim bladders and we collect the algae from the surface. Then we use it as basis for fuel or else sequester it.
I'm not sure I totally parse what you're suggesting, but here's the basic concept behind heat engines; (anything that produces movement, and thus possibly electricity, requires a difference between hot and cold. The term for this is a heat engine. They're also called carnot engines. ) "Waste heat" is heat that isn't sufficiently hot compared to the heat sink to generate much energy.
The energy generated by a heat engine is determined by the difference between the heat source and the heat sink. In other words, the difference between hot and cold. While there might be some use for waste heat (i.e. heating houses and roads in cold climates as they did back in my college, and possibly some other applications) anything that makes your heatsink in any way less cold will reduce the efficiency of the primary generator.
I'm pretty sure the rise in diagnosis of autism correlates with a decline in the number of women smoking while pregnant and a rise in women having children later in life, so we should stop getting immunized AND start smoking more AND have more premarital sex.
No, unless you think laborors have no rights under capitalism. Even the creation of a labor union is a free market activity.
Not sure quite what you're arguing for here, but of course. The creation of a labor union can be a free market activity. Or, if the government institutionalizes the labor union, it can be an anti-free market entity and a tool of government coercion. If you didn't belong to the Nazi labor union, for example, it was next to impossible for you to get a job in Nazi Germany. The Nazis took control of industry and labor organization.)
I'm saying that if Stalin had refrained from exercising power and been 'non-exploitative' then he would have been libertarian. He couldn't union bust or control industry and also be non-exploitative.
"Communism," in practice, has ammounted to centralization of power and coercion. Without those two things, it would have been somthing else entirely.
But the institution was strictly managed by people who probably loved them. Businesses can work someone to death knowing the person can be replaced in a heartbeat.
You can be hurt trying to break in a horse, too. Parents moved to cities and allowed thier children to take dangerous factory jobs. The migration to the cities and the permission given to these children indicates a preference.
For the same reason the one-income family is becoming financially unmanageable, I'm just *assuming* it wasn't viable in 1850's London as well not to have your kids earning their own subsistence. Otherwise, why do that to you kid?
Yes, that's my point. Which would mean that, unless you advocate government funds be used to raise children, that being "anti-child labor" in some situations amounts to being "pro-child hunger." Opposing dangerous labor (especially for children, but also others) makes sense. But opposing all child labor might have a negative impact on children in the short term since they wouldn't be able to sustain themselves (and hopefully force smaller families in the long term.)
Typically the reason for large family farms was so that the kids could help out with the farm work. In other words, child labor was an institutionalized part of rural life (and rural "social security" for that matter.) Though I don't think the article spells that out.
If Stalin weren't exploitative, he would've had no need to exert power so forcefully; he would then have been a true communist (yeah, I'm sounding like one myself.. *shudder*) and not a totalitarian dictator.
Perhaps, but he would also be a true capitalist and a true libertarian then too, no?
If the government evens the playing field, then no business can use, say, child labor, to gain a competitive edge.
This partly overlooks the problem of why so many families were willing to put their children to work to begin with. Of course, some families are not really interested in their children's best interests. Gov't regulation might help a little there. But "opposing child labor" overlooks the question of why so many families had been willing to "exploit" their own children. And why people collectively might favor moral laws that they wouldn't individually obey. Anti-child labor laws only seem possible when the majority of people already want their children's best interests, and also when they don't see child labor as an economic necessity to provide, say, food. In short, the economic and political desire has to preceed the creation of laws. Laws which preceed economic and political desire are probably not going to be effective, much less helpful. Social spending on education may help some if there's enough capital to support it. But social ownership of industry doesn't seem helpful.
Milton Friedman discusses it here under GHOST OF CAPITALISM PAST.
ROBINSON Again and again you will hear that we've tried, the Western world has already tried laissez-faire, let her rip economics and it ended up with the London that Charles Dickens portrayed "dirty, filthy, child-labor" just a terrible mess. What do you do..how did that come to be?
FRIEDMAN It was a terrible mess but what cleaned it up?
ROBINSON Disraeli and his social...the child labor laws...
FRIEDMAN No, no what cleaned it up was the progress of private enterprise because you had a...the reason it was so messy was because you had to burn coal and the kind of coal that was available in Britain was very smokey and messy. And once you were able to use oil, natural gas, better furnaces, all of those things is what it made it possible to clean London up. Now so far as child labor is concerned..what happens is, what happens in the picture that's drawn of Britain in the 19th century is that there's no image of what went before. Of why is it that all these people from the farming, from the rural areas came to the city. Did they come to the city because they thought it would be worse? Or because they thought it would be better? And was it worse or was it better? In the early days, you know there are very few things that are 100% black or 100% white, there are various shades of grey. And what we aim for is the least shade of grey that's possible. I'm not going to say that all was rosy in Britain at the time, it wasn't. But look around the world today. Where is it least rosy? -In those countries where things that are run by the government not in those countries where private enterprises are. And the same thing was true in Britain, the conditions in the rural areas, on the farms, were far worse than conditions in the city, but they were not visible, they were hidden, nobody saw them. [ROBINSON Dickens didn't stroll around the countryside..] Right..
Milton overstates things a little, to the benefit of his personal philosophy. Problems like those described in The Jungle (the part that describes the food industry) did require government regulation.
it shits me to tears when people speak about how communism failed. Communism has never been tried. Ever.
Has capitalism "been tried" technically?
The governing body which was supposed to 'wither away' after the destruction of capitalism in the soviet union never withered. It's kindof like opening your "socialism in 12 easy steps" book and getting irrevocably stuck on step 8.
Similarly, Soviet figures were sometimes criticised for taking a 'too left' position and moving too quickly towards communism.
If you prefer, we can say that "Marxist Leninism" has failed and non-market based approaches to problems have been shown to be suboptimal. And that collective ownership of goods without personal investment or personal risk is also sub-optimal.
Considering that the verse in the Great Gatsby was playing off the phrase "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer," I'd say the grandparent post was correct, no?
one thing's sure and nothing's surer / The rich get richer while the poor get - childrenlink
Perhaps you're just a troll, but I'll assume for a moment you aren't.
Radical capitalism is based on an assumption of some kind of radical choice, which is basically a fantasy.
There are generally a lot more choices in capitalist societies than in socialist or communist ones. As it is, I can search with Yahoo, Dogpile, or any other number of search engines.
Part of my problem with MS is that they prevent other products from being compatible with theirs, in order to maintain their monopoly.
What is in fact happening is the continued alienation of human beings from each other and our social worlds
This 'alienation of human beings from so and so' line (usually from the product of their labor) is one of the worst Marxist criticism of capitalism I've heard. As if I can't call up my friends and spend time with them if I want to. Or get a job outside a corporation making handmade art... if I wanted to. Corporations pay much better,generally, than smaller businesses. If people thought "alienation" was a problem, they'd work in jobs that didn't "alienate" them. (And how does Google alienate people? By making it easier to find people or businesses, it would seem to do the opposite.)
Drive the speed limit in the left hand lane! Cops can ticket you if you're going 10 miles over the limit, even if you're driving the speed of traffic (had it happen). Do you know any other law where people get so pissed at you just for following it, and forcing them to follow it too?
Speeding regulations aren't laws so much as a lottery in reverse.
There was even that guy in yesterday's news explaining that pedophiles actually do what they do since they feel like children and hate the "world of adult people". WTF? Sure they do. Since this is what children do all day: rape their friends.
It would explain some pedophiles like Michael Jackson. But I wouldn't make it as a blanekt statement.
The basic tenet in the belief of the beneficial nature of patents is the belief that progress moves along in giant leaps of imagination, or immensely costly research, that is so rare that it needs protecting.
I think the original idea was that without patents, companies wouldn't release their innovations into the public domain.
Your perspective is a strange one to me. I admit my stance is half joking. But it's also half serious.
I think activists involved in AIDS education have done some good, (mainly by persuading people what to avoid or not do, thus 'inactivists.' A lot of the most effective activisim involves successful prevention.)
I agree that the folks in the CDC and outside of it did a lot of good with their research by proving that HIV was a transmissible agent and forcing those who ran the blood supplies to screen for it. They successfully prevented a certain activity.
I'm really not convinced that speeding AZT through the FDA did much good at all. It seems to be a currently accepted treatment for preventing seroconversion, and it may actually be useful for this (Though I have a LOT of trouble believing AZT is still the best drug for this, even if it does supposedly lower the risk of seroconversion. The stuff decimates a person's immune system at a time when it needs to be strong.) And it's still questionable whether AZT monotherapy significantly extends lifespan (No good study shows it. See problems associated with the Concord study, on which AZT approval was based) and it greatly decreases life quality. So yes, I am cynical. But not unreasonably so. Those activists who support their agenda with public funds are often just rent seeking.
people who were being utterly ignored by big business and the government up until that point.
This is incidental to the thread, but it bears on the "activists are good, everyone else is an apathetic jerk" perspective so I'll address it. a lof of folks in the gay communities had worked towards the goal of being ignored by the government. Government involvement in the gay community prior to that point (Stonewall, etc.) wasn't particularly appreciated. Closing down the bathhouses in response to the HIV crisis was not happily received by some. HIV/AIDS was a public relations disaster for the gay community/communities and a lot of "activism" was, frankly, aimed towards PR and damage control.
It doesn't seem to reflect ANY of my experience with such people.
Groups like ACORN pay a huge portion of their overhead simply to pay the people collecting their donations. It's a huge feel-good circle-jerk. "Activism," while occasionally required and helpful, often does not involve productive work. When it does, it's usually called 'education' or 'research.' I've known more than a few people (good, caring people) who've helped others 'protest for better wages' rather than starting businesses themselves and actually paying better wages.
Sustainable use of resources means they'll be here not just today, but tomorrow, and ten and a hundred years from now. Again, it's a positive, and active thing to do.
Sure, sustainable development is positive. But this begs the question; which group of people contribute most to sustainable development? Which is a better way to acheive your goals; being a business owner focused on sustainable development of a given resource (lets say PALCO's management of old growth redwood forests before their takeover by MAXXAM) or being an activist looking to regulate the activity? And even when the activist is working for a positive (preservation of certain swaths of forest) their work is essentially negative (in they value neutral sense) (i.e. they're preventing negative actions from happening.) While industries are often demonized, their efficiency contributes tremendously to sustainable development. Occasionally, 'activism' is required to get governments to make laws which regulate externalities, prevent unfair use of emminent domain and so forth. But again, that's a matter of preventing negative activity rather than engaging in productive activity.
There are many ancient sources on the career of the Macedonian conqueror Alexander the Great: the Library of world history of Diodorus of Sicily, Quintus Curtius Rufus' History of Alexander the Great of Macedonia, a Life of Alexander by Plutarch of Chaeronea and the Anabasis by Arrian of Nicomedia are the best-known. All these authors lived more than three centuries after the events they described, but they used older, nearly contemporary sources, that are now lost.
Alexander the Great didn't have much first hand evidence to reccomend his existance.
It's a bit silly to discuss history when you haven't a clue.
You're hardly in a place to lecture people on having a clue about history since you seem to know very little either about ancient Greek historiography or Greco-Roman historiography around the destruction of the second temple.
Most historians, even those who are atheists, believe that Jesus existed as an historical figure.
This is like saying the world is flat or that the moon is a liberal myth.
No, this is like saying that there are enough primary sources regarding Jesus that if you disqualify his existance based on a lack of first hand (not contemporaneous, but first hand) sources that you'd have to disqualify quite a few other historical figures as well. Including Alexander the Great.
I agree that a few conservatives are hypocritical on gender issues. Particuarly, I mean that the laws which compel men to support their children are so horribly enforced, both in the US and in other countries. (I have a friend in Canada whose dad has been horrid in this regard.) Personally, I don't want the government controlling people's medical choices. (My opinions about the morality of said choices are a different issue.) But are you sure that you're assigning their motivation correctly? The most common reason I've heard for being against abortion is believing (correctly or not) that a fetus is a full-blown child and has similar rights. The other explanations ususally come out of the mouths of people besides religious conservatives.
Not that I care what Jesus said, there's next to no historical evidence for his existence so what he said is of no consequence.
I figured that was your stance. (Assuming, perhaps incorrectly, that you were the OP.) But in history we have to use certain standards. If you take someone, who had as many first hand witnesses claiming to have seen him as Jesus did, and say that there isn't enough evidence to prove his existance, you erase quite a few other historical characters as well. Alexander the Great didn't have much first hand evidence to reccomend his existance. How do you know that his conquests weren't the result of several people, and attributed to a single man? Most historical figures were royalty. Whether or not you believe Jesus was a miracle worker or no, there are less than a handful of peasants in the ancient world who have more evidence for their existance than Jesus does. The evidence for his existance is about as strong as any figure, especially any peasant, in the ancient world.
Most of the 'activists' I know want to incite activity, not prevent it. From AIDS activists to Environmental activists, they want to get people off their apathetic asses and motivate them to do the right thing, instead of continuing to ignore big problems and just letting them get worse.
An anti-AIDS activist, if they're effective, works to prevent the spread of AIDS, no? Of course, some just try to find a 'cure for HIV' in which case people will be even more likely to spread it.
Same with environmentalists; There's a very limited amount of 'activity' that you can do to help the environment. Buy a more efficient car. Recycle. The rest lies in preventing action, either individually or through legislation.
Most of the 'activists' I've known DON'T get a lot done. The people who get things done, be it research or turning waste into more effective products, say what they do.
Do you know of any conservatives who are reccomending stoning women for adultery? Just curious.
Jesus also had his desciples carry swords. Why? At one point he tells them to sell their cloak and buy a sword.
Bear in mind, the Jews couldn't exactly vote out Roman tax collectors. For more, see; Regarding welfare and taxes (not my blog)
you may draw your own conclusions from the feeding of the 5,000.
Jesus the Bread of Life
25When they found him on the other side of the lake, they asked him, "Rabbi, when did you get here?"
26Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, you are looking for me, not because you saw miraculous signs but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. 27Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. On him God the Father has placed his seal of approval."
28Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?"
29Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."
30So they asked him, "What miraculous sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do? 31Our forefathers ate the manna in the desert; as it is written: 'He gave them bread from heaven to eat.'[c]"
32Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. 33For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world."
34"Sir," they said, "from now on give us this bread."
35Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty. 36But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. 37All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. 38For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."
41At this the Jews began to grumble about him because he said, "I am the bread that came down from heaven." 42They said, "Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, 'I came down from heaven'?"
43"Stop grumbling among yourselves," Jesus answered. 44"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. 45It is written in the Prophets: 'They will all be taught by God.'[d] Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me. 46No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. 47I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life. 48I am the bread of life. 49Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. 50But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. 51I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."
52Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"
53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who fe
Additionally the "green" technology doesn't fall from the sky or something, somebody needs to make it and that means additional employment.
Additional costs inevitably mean fewer jobs in total and less wealth. You can create jobs by hiring people to dig ditches and fill them in again, but the money has to come from other more productive pursuits. And those productive pursuits will suffer to a greater degree than the benefit gained by having people digging ditches. It's a variant on the 'broken window' fallacy.
In other words, yes, reducing carbon emissions will have a negative impact on the economy and employment overall, even if it creates new jobs in certain sectors. The only question is whether this is balanced out by 'gains' to those who benefit from the current climate, which I'll leave to other posts.
While I agree strongly with your comment, the logical fallacy being committed here is best described as an argument from authority.
Ad Homeniem is the opposite (discrediting evidence through an attack on a person.) i.e. if you said "because the only people who people who oppose global warming are oil companies, we therefore can't trust their evidence. "
Iron is the limiting factor in the desolate zones of the earth's oceans (which are all far away from shore.) Fertilize the earth's desolate zones with iron. 1K of iron is enough to fix 100,000K of carbon due to algae growth. Also, cyanobacteria produce Hydrogen Sulfide, which leads to cloud the formation of nice white puffy clouds. And it does it far out at sea where acid rain isn't a problem. This would kill two birds with one stone.
Tests have already been done re: feasibility, but the possibility of trading carbon credits in a new market looked to be a huge source of funding for folks like Enron. And nations with less industry would rather not have to compete with the industrialized nations.
I've said this before, but not only would iron fertilization sequester tremendous amounts of carbon (100,000 K for every 1 K of iron used in the desolate zones) but cyanobacteria produce DMS which creates cloud cover. You don't have to distribute anything.
This isn't in direct reply to TFA, however the open highway has some of the fewest accidents and yet the most moving violations. This is nuts. Compare the US highway system to the Autobahn. Speed limits may make the accidents that do happen less lethal, but more than anything they're there to generate revenue. It's a huge conflict of interest that local police stations get money from speeding tickets and not, say, domestic violence incidents.
Slashdot Mirror
So we use iron fertilization to create blooms in the ocean's dead zones (very cost effective). We seed the area with algae that have some kind of swim bladders and we collect the algae from the surface. Then we use it as basis for fuel or else sequester it.
I'm not sure I totally parse what you're suggesting, but here's the basic concept behind heat engines; (anything that produces movement, and thus possibly electricity, requires a difference between hot and cold. The term for this is a heat engine. They're also called carnot engines. ) "Waste heat" is heat that isn't sufficiently hot compared to the heat sink to generate much energy.
The energy generated by a heat engine is determined by the difference between the heat source and the heat sink. In other words, the difference between hot and cold. While there might be some use for waste heat (i.e. heating houses and roads in cold climates as they did back in my college, and possibly some other applications) anything that makes your heatsink in any way less cold will reduce the efficiency of the primary generator.
I'm pretty sure the rise in diagnosis of autism correlates with a decline in the number of women smoking while pregnant and a rise in women having children later in life, so we should stop getting immunized AND start smoking more AND have more premarital sex.
You had me at "have more premarital sex."
Remember, it's for the children!!
No, unless you think laborors have no rights under capitalism. Even the creation of a labor union is a free market activity.
Not sure quite what you're arguing for here, but of course. The creation of a labor union can be a free market activity. Or, if the government institutionalizes the labor union, it can be an anti-free market entity and a tool of government coercion. If you didn't belong to the Nazi labor union, for example, it was next to impossible for you to get a job in Nazi Germany. The Nazis took control of industry and labor organization.)
I'm saying that if Stalin had refrained from exercising power and been 'non-exploitative' then he would have been libertarian. He couldn't union bust or control industry and also be non-exploitative.
"Communism," in practice, has ammounted to centralization of power and coercion. Without those two things, it would have been somthing else entirely.
But the institution was strictly managed by people who probably loved them. Businesses can work someone to death knowing the person can be replaced in a heartbeat.
You can be hurt trying to break in a horse, too. Parents moved to cities and allowed thier children to take dangerous factory jobs. The migration to the cities and the permission given to these children indicates a preference.
For the same reason the one-income family is becoming financially unmanageable, I'm just *assuming* it wasn't viable in 1850's London as well not to have your kids earning their own subsistence. Otherwise, why do that to you kid?
Yes, that's my point. Which would mean that, unless you advocate government funds be used to raise children, that being "anti-child labor" in some situations amounts to being "pro-child hunger." Opposing dangerous labor (especially for children, but also others) makes sense. But opposing all child labor might have a negative impact on children in the short term since they wouldn't be able to sustain themselves (and hopefully force smaller families in the long term.)
or even the child labor problem he acknowledged
Typically the reason for large family farms was so that the kids could help out with the farm work. In other words, child labor was an institutionalized part of rural life (and rural "social security" for that matter.) Though I don't think the article spells that out.
If Stalin weren't exploitative, he would've had no need to exert power so forcefully; he would then have been a true communist (yeah, I'm sounding like one myself.. *shudder*) and not a totalitarian dictator.
Perhaps, but he would also be a true capitalist and a true libertarian then too, no?
If the government evens the playing field, then no business can use, say, child labor, to gain a competitive edge.
This partly overlooks the problem of why so many families were willing to put their children to work to begin with. Of course, some families are not really interested in their children's best interests. Gov't regulation might help a little there. But "opposing child labor" overlooks the question of why so many families had been willing to "exploit" their own children. And why people collectively might favor moral laws that they wouldn't individually obey. Anti-child labor laws only seem possible when the majority of people already want their children's best interests, and also when they don't see child labor as an economic necessity to provide, say, food. In short, the economic and political desire has to preceed the creation of laws. Laws which preceed economic and political desire are probably not going to be effective, much less helpful. Social spending on education may help some if there's enough capital to support it. But social ownership of industry doesn't seem helpful.
Milton overstates things a little, to the benefit of his personal philosophy. Problems like those described in The Jungle (the part that describes the food industry) did require government regulation.
it shits me to tears when people speak about how communism failed. Communism has never been tried. Ever.
Has capitalism "been tried" technically?
The governing body which was supposed to 'wither away' after the destruction of capitalism in the soviet union never withered. It's kindof like opening your "socialism in 12 easy steps" book and getting irrevocably stuck on step 8.
Similarly, Soviet figures were sometimes criticised for taking a 'too left' position and moving too quickly towards communism.
If you prefer, we can say that "Marxist Leninism" has failed and non-market based approaches to problems have been shown to be suboptimal. And that collective ownership of goods without personal investment or personal risk is also sub-optimal.
Considering that the verse in the Great Gatsby was playing off the phrase "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer," I'd say the grandparent post was correct, no?
one thing's sure and nothing's surer / The rich get richer while the poor get - children link
Perhaps you're just a troll, but I'll assume for a moment you aren't.
Radical capitalism is based on an assumption of some kind of radical choice, which is basically a fantasy.
There are generally a lot more choices in capitalist societies than in socialist or communist ones. As it is, I can search with Yahoo, Dogpile, or any other number of search engines.
Part of my problem with MS is that they prevent other products from being compatible with theirs, in order to maintain their monopoly.
What is in fact happening is the continued alienation of human beings from each other and our social worlds
This 'alienation of human beings from so and so' line (usually from the product of their labor) is one of the worst Marxist criticism of capitalism I've heard. As if I can't call up my friends and spend time with them if I want to. Or get a job outside a corporation making handmade art... if I wanted to. Corporations pay much better,generally, than smaller businesses. If people thought "alienation" was a problem, they'd work in jobs that didn't "alienate" them. (And how does Google alienate people? By making it easier to find people or businesses, it would seem to do the opposite.)
Drive the speed limit in the left hand lane! Cops can ticket you if you're going 10 miles over the limit, even if you're driving the speed of traffic (had it happen). Do you know any other law where people get so pissed at you just for following it, and forcing them to follow it too?
Speeding regulations aren't laws so much as a lottery in reverse.
There was even that guy in yesterday's news explaining that pedophiles actually do what they do since they feel like children and hate the "world of adult people". WTF? Sure they do. Since this is what children do all day: rape their friends.
It would explain some pedophiles like Michael Jackson. But I wouldn't make it as a blanekt statement.
Yeah, but wouldn't most sane webmasters sign up and give authorization if given the chance?
The basic tenet in the belief of the beneficial nature of patents is the belief that progress moves along in giant leaps of imagination, or immensely costly research, that is so rare that it needs protecting.
I think the original idea was that without patents, companies wouldn't release their innovations into the public domain.
Your perspective is a strange one to me.
I admit my stance is half joking.
But it's also half serious.
I think activists involved in AIDS education have done some good, (mainly by persuading people what to avoid or not do, thus 'inactivists.' A lot of the most effective activisim involves successful prevention.)
I agree that the folks in the CDC and outside of it did a lot of good with their research by proving that HIV was a transmissible agent and forcing those who ran the blood supplies to screen for it. They successfully prevented a certain activity.
I'm really not convinced that speeding AZT through the FDA did much good at all. It seems to be a currently accepted treatment for preventing seroconversion, and it may actually be useful for this (Though I have a LOT of trouble believing AZT is still the best drug for this, even if it does supposedly lower the risk of seroconversion. The stuff decimates a person's immune system at a time when it needs to be strong.) And it's still questionable whether AZT monotherapy significantly extends lifespan (No good study shows it. See problems associated with the Concord study, on which AZT approval was based) and it greatly decreases life quality. So yes, I am cynical. But not unreasonably so. Those activists who support their agenda with public funds are often just rent seeking.
people who were being utterly ignored by big business and the government up until that point.
This is incidental to the thread, but it bears on the "activists are good, everyone else is an apathetic jerk" perspective so I'll address it. a lof of folks in the gay communities had worked towards the goal of being ignored by the government. Government involvement in the gay community prior to that point (Stonewall, etc.) wasn't particularly appreciated. Closing down the bathhouses in response to the HIV crisis was not happily received by some. HIV/AIDS was a public relations disaster for the gay community/communities and a lot of "activism" was, frankly, aimed towards PR and damage control.
It doesn't seem to reflect ANY of my experience with such people.
Groups like ACORN pay a huge portion of their overhead simply to pay the people collecting their donations. It's a huge feel-good circle-jerk. "Activism," while occasionally required and helpful, often does not involve productive work. When it does, it's usually called 'education' or 'research.' I've known more than a few people (good, caring people) who've helped others 'protest for better wages' rather than starting businesses themselves and actually paying better wages.
Sustainable use of resources means they'll be here not just today, but tomorrow, and ten and a hundred years from now. Again, it's a positive, and active thing to do.
Sure, sustainable development is positive. But this begs the question; which group of people contribute most to sustainable development? Which is a better way to acheive your goals; being a business owner focused on sustainable development of a given resource (lets say PALCO's management of old growth redwood forests before their takeover by MAXXAM) or being an activist looking to regulate the activity? And even when the activist is working for a positive (preservation of certain swaths of forest) their work is essentially negative (in they value neutral sense) (i.e. they're preventing negative actions from happening.) While industries are often demonized, their efficiency contributes tremendously to sustainable development. Occasionally, 'activism' is required to get governments to make laws which regulate externalities, prevent unfair use of emminent domain and so forth. But again, that's a matter of preventing negative activity rather than engaging in productive activity.
(emphasis added)source, source
Alexander the Great didn't have much first hand evidence to reccomend his existance.
It's a bit silly to discuss history when you haven't a clue.
You're hardly in a place to lecture people on having a clue about history since you seem to know very little either about ancient Greek historiography or Greco-Roman historiography around the destruction of the second temple.
Most historians, even those who are atheists, believe that Jesus existed as an historical figure.
This is like saying the world is flat or that the moon is a liberal myth.
No, this is like saying that there are enough primary sources regarding Jesus that if you disqualify his existance based on a lack of first hand (not contemporaneous, but first hand) sources that you'd have to disqualify quite a few other historical figures as well.
Including Alexander the Great.
I agree that a few conservatives are hypocritical on gender issues. Particuarly, I mean that the laws which compel men to support their children are so horribly enforced, both in the US and in other countries. (I have a friend in Canada whose dad has been horrid in this regard.) Personally, I don't want the government controlling people's medical choices. (My opinions about the morality of said choices are a different issue.) But are you sure that you're assigning their motivation correctly? The most common reason I've heard for being against abortion is believing (correctly or not) that a fetus is a full-blown child and has similar rights. The other explanations ususally come out of the mouths of people besides religious conservatives.
Not that I care what Jesus said, there's next to no historical evidence for his existence so what he said is of no consequence.
I figured that was your stance. (Assuming, perhaps incorrectly, that you were the OP.) But in history we have to use certain standards. If you take someone, who had as many first hand witnesses claiming to have seen him as Jesus did, and say that there isn't enough evidence to prove his existance, you erase quite a few other historical characters as well. Alexander the Great didn't have much first hand evidence to reccomend his existance. How do you know that his conquests weren't the result of several people, and attributed to a single man? Most historical figures were royalty. Whether or not you believe Jesus was a miracle worker or no, there are less than a handful of peasants in the ancient world who have more evidence for their existance than Jesus does. The evidence for his existance is about as strong as any figure, especially any peasant, in the ancient world.
Most of the 'activists' I know want to incite activity, not prevent it. From AIDS activists to Environmental activists, they want to get people off their apathetic asses and motivate them to do the right thing, instead of continuing to ignore big problems and just letting them get worse.
An anti-AIDS activist, if they're effective, works to prevent the spread of AIDS, no? Of course, some just try to find a 'cure for HIV' in which case people will be even more likely to spread it.
Same with environmentalists; There's a very limited amount of 'activity' that you can do to help the environment. Buy a more efficient car. Recycle. The rest lies in preventing action, either individually or through legislation.
Most of the 'activists' I've known DON'T get a lot done. The people who get things done, be it research or turning waste into more effective products, say what they do.
Just curious.
Jesus also had his desciples carry swords. Why? At one point he tells them to sell their cloak and buy a sword.
Bear in mind, the Jews couldn't exactly vote out Roman tax collectors. For more, see;
Regarding welfare and taxes (not my blog)
you may draw your own conclusions from the feeding of the 5,000.
Additionally the "green" technology doesn't fall from the sky or something, somebody needs to make it and that means additional employment.
Additional costs inevitably mean fewer jobs in total and less wealth. You can create jobs by hiring people to dig ditches and fill them in again, but the money has to come from other more productive pursuits. And those productive pursuits will suffer to a greater degree than the benefit gained by having people digging ditches. It's a variant on the 'broken window' fallacy.
In other words, yes, reducing carbon emissions will have a negative impact on the economy and employment overall, even if it creates new jobs in certain sectors. The only question is whether this is balanced out by 'gains' to those who benefit from the current climate, which I'll leave to other posts.
The libertarian answer might be to stop subsidizing any form of transportation. Privatize roads. Don't build airports. etc.
Good point. They really should be called inactivitsts, since they want to prevent activity.
While I agree strongly with your comment, the logical fallacy being committed here is best described as an argument from authority.
Ad Homeniem is the opposite (discrediting evidence through an attack on a person.) i.e. if you said "because the only people who people who oppose global warming are oil companies, we therefore can't trust their evidence. "
Iron is the limiting factor in the desolate zones of the earth's oceans (which are all far away from shore.) Fertilize the earth's desolate zones with iron. 1K of iron is enough to fix 100,000K of carbon due to algae growth. Also, cyanobacteria produce Hydrogen Sulfide, which leads to cloud the formation of nice white puffy clouds. And it does it far out at sea where acid rain isn't a problem. This would kill two birds with one stone.
Tests have already been done re: feasibility, but the possibility of trading carbon credits in a new market looked to be a huge source of funding for folks like Enron. And nations with less industry would rather not have to compete with the industrialized nations.
I've said this before, but not only would iron fertilization sequester tremendous amounts of carbon (100,000 K for every 1 K of iron used in the desolate zones) but cyanobacteria produce DMS which creates cloud cover. You don't have to distribute anything.
This isn't in direct reply to TFA, however the open highway has some of the fewest accidents and yet the most moving violations. This is nuts. Compare the US highway system to the Autobahn. Speed limits may make the accidents that do happen less lethal, but more than anything they're there to generate revenue. It's a huge conflict of interest that local police stations get money from speeding tickets and not, say, domestic violence incidents.