Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[smjjames]

Well, there are clean alternatives (solar, wind, hydrogen, whatever the stuff is where you use waste to get methane...), but we just haven't started DEPLOYING them effectively.

Yeah, but they have their own problems, solar doesn't work 24/7 because night and clouds, theres only so many places where wind is reliable, you can't dam every river in sight..... and there isn't anything approaching the efficiency that gas has on a large scale.

There is no viable alternative to fossil fuels in regard to individual transportation.
There is no contender for the energy density of fossil fuels in your car's gas tank, with the same kind of ease of refilling or safety in handling.

Individual transportation is very important to modern civilization.

^This

We have been attempting to change to electric or some alternative, but none of the alternatives match gasoline competitively, yet.

[SalmonGod]

This is a loaded question.

When you are able to prevent harm, without causing more harm in the process, you should make the attempt to prevent the harm.

However, it is important to understand that human minds are not endlessly plastic, and individual people's minds are not able to adapt efficiently as they age.  Lamentably, this means older people are less tolerant of new social mores.

Accepting that this is the case, and enacting social reforms at a pace that enables these people to naturally be removed from political concern through natural age and death, while still reaching for the progressive goal, handily removes the danger of radicalization (Dead people cant blow up buildings, or spread rhetoric that is inflammatory) at the consequence of getting to the finish line later.

I suppose a reasonable analogy might be a cancer patient.  They have inoperable tumors, that are life threatening, and are quite painful to them.

We have 3 course of action that we could take--

1) We could attempt to cut out the tumors right away anyway, and damn the consequences. At least the tumors are gone.
2) We can use slow chemo therapy to slowly kill the tumors, and have a better overall prognosis for the patient.
3) We can just ignore the cancer patient totally. In fact, we will just deny them any kind of treatment at all.

The typical progressive tends to favor action 1, since they view any length of time in which the patient suffers from the tumors as unimaginably horrible, even if doing so is very bad for the patient in the long run.  I favor option 2, which takes longer, and forces the patient to endure having the painful tumors for a time. The recalcitrant biggot favors option 3.

Choosing option 2 does not mean that you are trying to appease supporters of option 3.

You haven't helped me to understand your position at all.

If a person is denied equal rights, is it wrong for them to petition the courts to gain protection for those rights? 
If I am presented with a choice between a politician who supports equal rights and a politician who does not, is it wrong for me to vote for the former? 
Is it wrong for me to publicly express my opinion in favor of equal rights, especially in a way that might influence policy?

Based on our conversation so far, I don't think you have a clear answer.  Your opinion seems to be that these things are not wrong, so long as they're moderated.  Meaning I should only sometimes behave in a way that I am ethically comfortable with.  And you offer no guidelines as to just how often it's safe for me to support equality. 

Was it going too far to challenge for federal protection of gay marriage?  Should I have said "whoa guys this is too much, let's wait 20 years and then we should be ok"
Should I wait until I'm 60 to start being vocal against racist policing?
Should I tell my representatives that I think women should be allowed to suffer and die for another 30 years or so, before we start sneaking in better access to health care?

I don't understand what you suggest in terms of the actualization of your ideas.

[Shadowlord]

Isn't the standard treatment to remove tumors and then treat with chemo to try to get anything that was missed, for actual removable tumors anyways? Just doing one or the other would be less effective normally. (obviously some cancers can't be surgically removed, and it's metastasized then surgery won't save you and probably neither will anything else except a time machine)

On climate and energy, this is why Bill Gates just announced a new effort to fund r&d for new energy technology and such.

[Baffler]

I think what he's saying is that forward movement even though the people swing wildly every which way, it's the duty of the government to actually respond to their demands in a moderated and deliberate way because that causes the least turmoil. He's operating on the premise that clearly defined "forward" movement exists, and that it is inherently good, but I don't think I'll get too far around here challenging that assumption.

[SalmonGod]

I think what he's saying is that forward movement even though the people swing wildly every which way, it's the duty of the government to actually respond to their demands in a moderated and deliberate way because that causes the least turmoil. He's operating on the premise that clearly defined "forward" movement exists, and that it is inherently good, but I don't think I'll get too far around here challenging that assumption.

And presumably, in a representative democracy, I would have some part in this.

If I am presented with a choice between a politician who supports equal rights and a politician who does not, is it wrong for me to vote for the former? 

[Baffler]

Eh, I don't really want to argue his point for him, but if I understand correctly I'd say that you're a part of the process in this model, but not because you're having all that much influence on the decision making process. Rather because you're pulling on one end of the rope, even though the flag in the middle doesn't, and shouldn't, move all that much, someone needs to pull on either end. Otherwise the people pulling on the other end will fall on their asses or the rope will just end up on the ground and get all muddy and nobody wants that. If one side pulls too hard, the other faceplants and gets all pissed, and that's not good for anyone either. The point is to keep the rope taut, and... move sideways while avoiding obstacles? The metaphor kinda breaks down there.

[wierd]

It's quite simple, with a little thought experiment.

Imagine for a moment that the terrorists... WIN. That is to say, all rational sense is lost, and all the social progress of the past half century is violently thrown back.

Do you believe that you will be able to effectively adapt to this change, or do you think that you will never be truly happy in that environment?

Which would you prefer in that context-- A slow devolution from what we have back to 300AD standards of humanitarian concern--- Over the course of several human lifetimes-- Or a violent, sudden one that happens within a single human lifetime?

Just as you probably would not be able to endure such a rapid change backward, these people cannot endure a rapid change FORWARD. 

Again, the cancer patient analogy still applies.  You view the status of being tumor and pain free as an inherent human right, if we apply the analogy correctly. You are asking me when it is OK to force somebody to endure the pain and illness of having these tumors. I am answering you the only way I can-- When enduring that pain for a short time, means less overall complication and pain for the patient later.

The "Magical" option of "I wave a magic wand, and the painful tumors magically vanish with no adverse consequences, and this happens instantly and miraculously" is not realistic, and is not on the table.

When presented with politicians that propose social reform, be more selective in how they propose to enact it.  "NOW! DO IT NOW!" has been demonstrated to induce radicalized violence in people that cannot adapt to "Instant" change.  It is undesirable to me, because it causes long lasting societal problems of this nature.

As such, when I see politicians that propose social reforms, I look at how they intend to enact them.  Do they want to start small, and work toward the end goal, allowing the populace time to adapt to the changes-- or do they intend to claim that "loss of momentum" will adversely affect the ability of the reform to come to fruition, and seek to rush ham-fistedly and unsafely to the finish line, damn the consequences--- I choose the slow, incremental change option.  I DO NOT ACCEPT the "We are fine the way we are, no progress for anywone, praise jesus!" option.


You keep trying to bring this down to a black and white dichotomy. I can only assert so many times that grey is a valid choice before I start to tire of the questioning.

[Shadowlord]

So on slavery in the USA, would you have been like "Oh, no, we can't free all the slaves all at once, we have to slowly give them more rights, like, say, the right to not have their babies taken away from them, or the right to not be whipped... Maybe in 40 years we'll be ready to give them the right to earn a wage, and then in another generation, the right to buy their freedom if they've earned enough money... Then we can discuss maybe giving them the right to vote after that generation has died off too..."

[origamiscienceguy]

Well, there are clean alternatives (solar, wind, hydrogen, whatever the stuff is where you use waste to get methane...), but we just haven't started DEPLOYING them effectively.

Yeah, but they have their own problems, solar doesn't work 24/7 because night and clouds, theres only so many places where wind is reliable, you can't dam every river in sight..... and there isn't anything approaching the efficiency that gas has on a large scale.

There is no viable alternative to fossil fuels in regard to individual transportation.
There is no contender for the energy density of fossil fuels in your car's gas tank, with the same kind of ease of refilling or safety in handling.

Individual transportation is very important to modern civilization.

^This

We have been attempting to change to electric or some alternative, but none of the alternatives match gasoline competitively, yet.

I do think that natural gas will eventually replace gasoline, just not any time soon. It burns more efficiently and with less environmental reproductions. Natural gas is still a fossil fuel, but the USA has a butt ton of it.

[SalmonGod]

You keep trying to bring this down to a black and white dichotomy. I can only assert so many times that grey is a valid choice before I start to tire of the questioning.

But most of the type of change that you're saying results in right-wing terrorism happens in the courts, where outcomes are pretty black & white.

[wierd]

So on slavery in the USA, would you have been like "Oh, no, we can't free all the slaves all at once, we have to slowly give them more rights, like, say, the right to not have their babies taken away from them, or the right to not be whipped... Maybe in 40 years we'll be ready to give them the right to earn a wage, and then in another generation, the right to buy their freedom if they've earned enough money... Then we can discuss maybe giving them the right to vote after that generation has died off too..."

I realize this is a rhetorical question, but look seriously at what the consequences were for the emancipation proclamation in the south.
No, seriously. See what it did there. A slower paced version with a moratorium on new slave ownership, and an economic restructuring plan to move the south away from slave labor and toward automation + hired workers would have served everyones needs, and been substantially less destructive.


Salmon God:
Court rulings are very rarely taken as black and white. The question of applicability of a prior ruling or precedent is ALWAYS questioned in court when brought up.  The courtroom is the CORRECT place for this argument to take place. It is INCORRECT for EITHER side to demand that the other capitulate wholesale. (Either through actual violence, or through social violence-- such as ostracism.)



Take for instance, the reaction of the very recent supreme court decision concerning same sex marriages.  Almost immediately, there were petitions to have it repealed.  At the same time, a significant portion of the population's reaction was "HAH! EAT IT, BIGGOTED LOSERS!"

Almost nobody went the route I would have proposed-- Accept the ruling, and seek a plausible route to implementation that does not result in lots of very angry people who feel that their government is failing them.

The number one cause of terrorism, is when people feel they are unable to affect social changes through non-violent means. Keep that in mind. It's the reason why we have freedom of speech, and a number of others.

[smjjames]

Well, there are clean alternatives (solar, wind, hydrogen, whatever the stuff is where you use waste to get methane...), but we just haven't started DEPLOYING them effectively.

Yeah, but they have their own problems, solar doesn't work 24/7 because night and clouds, theres only so many places where wind is reliable, you can't dam every river in sight..... and there isn't anything approaching the efficiency that gas has on a large scale.

There is no viable alternative to fossil fuels in regard to individual transportation.
There is no contender for the energy density of fossil fuels in your car's gas tank, with the same kind of ease of refilling or safety in handling.

Individual transportation is very important to modern civilization.

^This

We have been attempting to change to electric or some alternative, but none of the alternatives match gasoline competitively, yet.

I do think that natural gas will eventually replace gasoline, just not any time soon. It burns more efficiently and with less environmental reproductions. Natural gas is still a fossil fuel, but the USA has a butt ton of it.

Except that even if we have a butt ton of it, we still run into the same problems of sustainability.

So on slavery in the USA, would you have been like "Oh, no, we can't free all the slaves all at once, we have to slowly give them more rights, like, say, the right to not have their babies taken away from them, or the right to not be whipped... Maybe in 40 years we'll be ready to give them the right to earn a wage, and then in another generation, the right to buy their freedom if they've earned enough money... Then we can discuss maybe giving them the right to vote after that generation has died off too..."

I realize this is a rhetorical question, but look seriously at what the consequences were for the emancipation proclamation in the south.
No, seriously. See what it did there. A slower paced version with a moratorium on new slave ownership, and an economic restructuring plan to move the south away from slave labor and toward automation + hired workers would have served everyones needs, and been substantially less destructive.

The thing is, that by the time of the Civil War, things were already absolutely at the breaking point and it had gotten to the point where it would have been one way or another.

[SalmonGod]

Salmon God:
Court rulings are very rarely taken as black and white. The question of applicability of a prior ruling or precedent is ALWAYS questioned in court when brought up.  The courtroom is the CORRECT place for this argument to take place. It is INCORRECT for EITHER side to demand that the other capitulate wholesale. (Either through actual violence, or through social violence-- such as ostracism.)

Ok... so then you're generally ok with the way things have progressed, then?  Because most of the progress against bigotry has been won in courts.  I mean this whole discussion was sparked by terrorism against abortion providers, but Roe vs Wade is a 40 year old court decision.

[wierd]

The south was already starting to embrace automation though.  The cotton-gin had made it economically undesirable to process cotton using slave labor. A machine requires minimal housing, can work continuously, and does not require any recurring costs, such as food or medical care.  Further innovations in cotton harvesting using things like steam tractors would have further eroded any incentive to maintain slaves. those that insisted on trying to maintain such plantation farms would soon find themselves unable to compete with the shrinking profit margins imposed by their competitors.

Instead of being TOLD "No, You are WRONG, and you WILL DO IT THIS WAY." (which is almost universally reviled in human history.) it would have been "Damn, I really DO have to modernize the farm, or I wont have anything!" as a self-realization. 

Instead of being the "Martyr" status that old plantation owners now enjoy, due to the strong armed practices of the north (which foster the foolish notion of the south rising again, and which continue to poison race relations down there to this very day), the plantation owners that stuanchly refused to adapt to changing market forces would be considered backward idiots, who's passing wont be missed.

It's all in the presentation, and execution of the reform.  Very very rarely is "DO IT NAAAAAOOOOWWWWW!" the best solution.


Salmon God:
I am fine with it, as long as no ruling is held sacro-sanct.  Roe-vs-Wade needs to be able to be questioned, and possibly overturned, if a suitably good argument can be made.  Say for instance, if reproductive medicine reaches a point where human reproduction no longer necessitates the use of a woman's womb, and the right of a woman to choose not to endure this can be comfortably accomodated without destruction of the fetus.

In such a future setting, there would be no need for abortion as it is currently practiced.

[mainiac]

The south was already starting to embrace automation though.  The cotton-gin had made it economically undesirable to process cotton using slave labor. A machine requires minimal housing, can work continuously, and does not require any recurring costs, such as food or medical care.  Further innovations in cotton harvesting using things like steam tractors would have further eroded any incentive to maintain slaves. those that insisted on trying to maintain such plantation farms would soon find themselves unable to compete with the shrinking profit margins imposed by their competitors.

Except what actually happened was the sharecropping system, the closest thing to slavery that was legal.  The cotton gin made slavery more viable, not less, by raising the value of cotton and allowing it to be profitably exploited in new areas.

But the important thing is that even when it's really obvious that one side is at fault, we blame both sides.