Rachel Maddow is the best person

[Metsfanmax]

But nobody wants to sacrifice anything. Including yourself I'd imagine. At least nothing important (by your own reasoning) that is.

You're quite wrong about that. I would sacrifice a lot in the name of a better future for the planet. Paying more in taxes is the least I could do, and I would do that without hesitation.

[patches70]

But nobody wants to sacrifice anything. Including yourself I'd imagine. At least nothing important (by your own reasoning) that is.

You're quite wrong about that. I would sacrifice a lot in the name of a better future for the planet. Paying more in taxes is the least I could do, and I would do that without hesitation.

Have at it then, give 'em more than you owe. There are plenty of politicians just itching to give it to someone else to secure a vote.

But it won't get the alternative energy market going any quicker.

This is actually a good thread, to be honest. You know, that's what our current POTUS is trying to do, force the issue on alternative energy. He's making the same mistake you do, and would do if you were in the same position. He's not paying any attention to the economics of it all.

How much money have we pumped into solar, wind and other "green" energy? Solyndra comes to mind as an example, but it's not even remotely the only example. But all the results are the same, failure and the money wasted. Used to pay creditors. Money taken from people, like you, who might actually be able to have used that money for better and more productive uses. We'll never know though, because we only see what is seen.

These things cannot be forced, but it doesn't stop politicians and ideologues from trying. Of course, they never pay any attention to the results, or make excuses to why things don't turn out like they thought they would.

Before crude oil became the staple energy source of the world, it used to be whale oil. We (as in the world) used to slaughter the whales, pod after pod, to get that precious whale oil to heat our homes and such. Crude oil wasn't used, it was too dirty and there just weren't any uses for it.
Until the internal combustion engine came around.
But the world didn't turn to oil immediately, it took time to build the market. Roads had to be built, for heating oil new designs had to be invented and eventually it all came together and we finally stopped the whole sale slaughter of whales.

Of course, oil is demonized, that we drive too many cars, use too much oil. but if you think about it, without those cars we'd have long since killed off every single whale in the world. The car saved the whale. Hell of a thing, eh?

To think, all our energy needs could be met with nuclear energy eh? Have you thought about the existing infrastructure? The power grid of the US is old. In fact, there was just today in a German newspaper an article about the US, that we are a dying giant. From the financial newspaper, Spiegel-
http://www.spiegel.de/international/wor ... 66153.html

....or the totally outdated power grid, to come to the conclusion that this country has it's future behind it. A nation that has it's utility lines hanging from poles in the street, instead of burying them in an orderly fashion underground, cannot be taken seriously"

You know, they got a point there, don't they? It's not just developing and building the fusion power plants, it's the entire infrastructure to support them that is also needed. It's already expensive enough to build a single power plant, then add on top of that rebuilding the whole infrastructure.

Tell me, how much resources are to be diverted from people to get this done?

It's a sad state of affairs, true enough. But it's a bit more than "we gotz ta build us some more nuclear power plants!" A lot more. And guess what? There is no money to do it. We've wasted the money. Now, some won't say it's wasted, after all. Is it wasted using the money we have to pay for people's medical expenses instead of rebuilding our infrastructure?
The person getting the money for their stomach stapling sure thinks it isn't wasted.
Is it wasted money paying for food for hungry people to eat instead of rebuilding that infrastructure?
The hungry person thinks it's money well spent.
Is it wasted money to send Metsfanmax to college instead of rebuilding that infrastructure?
Metsfanmans thinks it isn't wasted money.
Is it wasted money to pay for a college woman's abortion instead of rebuilding that infrastructure?
The now not pregnant woman thinks it isn't wasted money, after all, she should be saddled for the rest of her life because of a mistake, right?

Economics my boy, live and learn. You're young, you may think now "money doesn't matter" but I assure you that you won't always feel that way. When you are trading your time for a paycheck, the money'll matter. Otherwise, what's the point?
What good is it to save the world if you can't pay your rent? Or afford to eat a decent meal? Or pay for heat or repay the loans on your overpriced college education that's overpriced because government flooded a static market with tons and tons of "free" money that has to be repaid through taxes, repaid through the taking of everyone's production?

That debt based money system, which is great for getting people moving, sucks because every bill used isn't money, it's debt. Debt that must, come hell or high water, be paid back. When it comes time to decide to pay the interest on those debts or build the nuclear power plant, related infrastructure, guess which wins out?

[Metsfanmax]

Sorry, I stopped paying attention after you mentioned Solyndra.

[patches70]

Sorry, I stopped paying attention after you mentioned Solyndra.

Of course you didn't, anything that doesn't fit into, agree with or belong in your particular world view, you cannot allow to penetrate into your thinking.

And that's why you are destined to live a life filled with disappointment and resentment of human beings.

Good luck to ya!

[Metsfanmax]

Sorry, I stopped paying attention after you mentioned Solyndra.

Of course you didn't, anything that doesn't fit into, agree with or belong in your particular world view, you cannot allow to penetrate into your thinking.

No, I just realized that you had no idea what you were talking about. You started prattling on about economics, and then made a comment about one of three companies that filed for bankruptcy out of 33 given loans by the DOE. Apparently in your economic world, you should only take a risk and grant a loan when you are 100% certain it will be repaid, which means in your world, we never innovate. I don't want to be part of your backwards world, sorry.

And that's why you are destined to live a life filled with disappointment and resentment of human beings.

I don't resent humans for being unable to think in the long term, but yes, it does make me disappointed.

[patches70]

I don't resent humans for being unable to think in the long term, but yes, it does make me disappointed.

That includes you as well, kiddo. You think you can see long term goals but you haven't the faintest clue as to how to go about planning and implementing those long term goals. You think you see where humanity stands today and where you want humanity to be in the future but haven't a clue about anything in between. Figure your own path out first before you attempt to go planning everyone else's path. And then walk that path you've planned for yourself for a while first.

You're young, learn a bit more about the world from something other than books or a professor. Get some actual life experience before you go proudly proclaiming how you'd make rules for how other people are to live if you but had the power.
And for God's sake, have your default position be Freedom. For better or worse, Freedom is the most ideal. Don't be so quick to deny it, even to save the World. Without freedom, the World isn't worth a damn.

[Metsfanmax]

I don't resent humans for being unable to think in the long term, but yes, it does make me disappointed.

That includes you as well, kiddo. You think you can see long term goals but you haven't the faintest clue as to how to go about planning and implementing those long term goals. You think you see where humanity stands today and where you want humanity to be in the future but haven't a clue about anything in between. Figure your own path out first before you attempt to go planning everyone else's path. And then walk that path you've planned for yourself for a while first.

It's not my job to plan or implement those goals. I'm a scientist. My job is to help innovate and come up with the new ideas. We have a government apparatus precisely because that organization is designed to figure out the logistics of making the innovation economically possible. I will do my part, and I hope that the rest of society will do theirs.

At any rate, the fact that I don't know how to make it happen doesn't make it any less necessary. If we want to maintain our standard of living, we need the sort of energy source that coal and oil will never be. That is a fact.

You're young, learn a bit more about the world from something other than books or a professor. Get some actual life experience before you go proudly proclaiming how you'd make rules for how other people are to live if you but had the power.

I don't want "life experience" if that means becoming like you, jaded to the idea of hope for a better future for our species.

And for God's sake, have your default position be Freedom. For better or worse, Freedom is the most ideal. Don't be so quick to deny it, even to save the World. Without freedom, the World isn't worth a damn.

My default position is rationality.

Also, I don't really understand what you mean by "freedom." No one living in modern society is "free" in the sense of independent. We live in a global society that is entirely interconnected. We need to start acting like it. If you want to be free, go off the grid and live by yourself, Thoreau-style. Otherwise, quit complaining about the changes necessary to adjust to our new world.

[Dukasaur]

My default position is rationality.

Rationality is a means to an end. It can't define your goals. There's no self-evident reason why humans should continue to rule the world, rather than become extinct and be replaced by tarantulas or whatever. Only a purely subjective, instinctive, and outwardly indefensible impulse tells us that we must continue to exist.

So, while I'm all in favour of the rational, some non-rational basic impulse must tell the rational what goals to seek.

[Metsfanmax]

My default position is rationality.

Rationality is a means to an end. It can't define your goals. There's no self-evident reason why humans should continue to rule the world, rather than become extinct and be replaced by tarantulas or whatever. Only a purely subjective, instinctive, and outwardly indefensible impulse tells us that we must continue to exist.

So, while I'm all in favour of the rational, some non-rational basic impulse must tell the rational what goals to seek.

Rationality includes submitting to that which we cannot control. I did not choose to have the innate mental desire to do what is necessary to remain alive. Given that I do have this desire, which as far as I know is immutable, it would be irrational to act in ways which are detrimental to that aim.

For me, rationality as a perspective involves trying to avoid having default positions of the kind that patches suggests. Sticking to absolute principles in the face of all reason is undesirable.

[patches70]

We have a government apparatus precisely because that organization is designed to figure out the logistics of making the innovation economically possible.

That's not government's role.

I will do my part, and I hope that the rest of society will do theirs.

Just another Brick in the Wall aren't ya? Ha ha, sucker.

I don't want "life experience" if that means becoming like you, jaded to the idea of hope for a better future for our species.

Jaded? Have I not said "It'll be all right"?
Have I not said that we'll get to where we need to eventually?
Have I not said it's not worth the worry and stress?

I'm the exact opposite of jaded. You're the one who is the worry wart. There's nothing to be afraid of, man. What'll be will be. Simple as that. Individuals should be doing what is wise and right for them. You included. You do what you think is right, but don't presume to tell everyone else what they should be doing.

Maybe a little life experience will get rid of some of that fear you carry around with you.

My default position is rationality.

Funny, your "I'd force everyone to have a limit on how many children they could have". That's not rational or well thought out at all. It's a knee jerk reaction without any regard what so ever of the consequences.

Also, I don't really understand what you mean by "freedom."

That's no surprise.

We live in a global society that is entirely interconnected. We need to start acting like it.

Translation: Do what your told or else.

Nice.

If you want to be free, go off the grid and live by yourself, Thoreau-style. Otherwise, quit complaining about the changes necessary to adjust to our new world.

Ha! Who's complaining? You are the one in favor of legislating said changes. In other words, to use force. Because that's what making laws is, the use of force by the monopoly on violence that The State holds over people.
I'm for the organic, natural progression, not dragging mankind kicking and screaming with no regard to the unintentional (I'd hope) harm you'd have caused with your bowing to the alter of collectivism.
We aren't ants after all.
You on the other hand are all for using force on anyone who might stand in the way of what it is you deem is right for the world. Men have tried to take that mantle throughout human history and it always ends the same. Badly.

Yes, there is a global society, and it's not right for the US, you or anybody to go forcing their way on the world. The Ends don't justify the Means. There are ways to go about these things, but it's got to be freely chosen, otherwise all that awaits us is a dystopian cesspool where human beings are treated as nothing more than beasts. So try to limit the use of coercion in your arguments for why humanity should do this thing or that thing.
When you say "We've got to do this or we're all gonna die!" is a form of coercion.


Government'll fix it all, right! There is no incentive for politicians, fixing the world isn't why they are politicians. Politicians make their living by making sure there are as many problems as possible, so everyone will think we need them to "solve" those problems.
One day you'll figure it out. Don't be an Ant, man.

adjust to our new world.

"Our" world, as in yours and mine. Except you don't really mean that. You mean "Tow the line or be punished".

It's no wonder you don't know what freedom is.

[Phatscotty]

Is he a Nazi?

[Metsfanmax]

I will do my part, and I hope that the rest of society will do theirs.

Just another Brick in the Wall aren't ya? Ha ha, sucker.

No, I'm actually proud to be part of a society. I think that what we create when we work together is astonishing. Not always great (e.g. nuclear weapons), but nevertheless we do amazing things when we collaborate. The idea of every man for himself doesn't exist anymore. You have to be in complete denial to think that anyone makes decisions that only affect themselves, in the modern world. Every action an individual takes plays some larger role in the distribution of goods and services across society. You have nice modern conveniences like electricity, access to the internet, refrigeration, automobiles, etc. because we as a society collectively decided it would be a good thing for us to make progress and invent new technology to better our lives. You didn't invent any of that yourself, and you couldn't have. No single person was capable of initiating this revolution. So it is silly now to act like we can just go on living in isolated bubble worlds, thinking that we have the freedom to act without possibly harming others. That's not what happens. Every action has the possibility of helping or harming someone else. You can deny that reality if you like, but that just makes you immature; instead, own up to your role in an interconnected society. That society has given so much to you, and you deserve to give it a little back.

Jaded? Have I not said "It'll be all right"?
Have I not said that we'll get to where we need to eventually?
Have I not said it's not worth the worry and stress?

I'm the exact opposite of jaded. You're the one who is the worry wart. There's nothing to be afraid of, man. What'll be will be. Simple as that. Individuals should be doing what is wise and right for them. You included. You do what you think is right, but don't presume to tell everyone else what they should be doing.

Individuals doing what is wise and right for them is the ultimate paradox of capitalist society. On the one hand, all of those great achievements I mentioned above wouldn't have been possible if, at some level, people weren't interested in bettering their own lives. And in fact, obviously that's everyone's first concern, as human nature. On the other hand, people have an astonishing inability to realize when acting in accord with the greater good is good for them too. From an ethical point of view, I think that most people want to do the right thing, at least according to their own view of what that is. For most people that includes not acting deleteriously toward society at large if it can be avoided. Also, it's human nature to want to provide a better world for your offspring, and their offspring too. But we're not focusing on that, for perhaps the first generation in human history. One of the requirements of progress is that it must keep happening; stagnation is dangerous. We have built a society that is crucially dependent on oil for fuel, but oil won't last forever. Therefore it is important for us to keep innovating and build new technologies that improve upon the resource limitations of the old technologies. This is how we provide a better world for our descendants.

As I hinted earlier, I am not afraid of the future, I am optimistic for it. I know that we have the capability to largely eliminate dependence on oil already. The main problem we have is that by not having any foresight and deploying it now, we're going to have a period of a few decades that's rougher than it needs to be, because there will be major competition for resources while everyone makes the permanent switch to renewable energy resources. That doesn't matter in the large-scale scheme of things; humanity will most likely still exist in a few hundred years, assuming we don't intentionally kill ourselves off. But these resource problems are likely to affect even my life as I get older, and certainly the life of the next generation. It would be naive of me to completely shut it out.

Funny, your "I'd force everyone to have a limit on how many children they could have". That's not rational or well thought out at all. It's a knee jerk reaction without any regard what so ever of the consequences.

Why do you suggest that it is a knee jerk reaction? That implies that I have not thought about it. In fact, I have thought about this issue, extensively. So I do not think that is a fair description of my stance. You may disagree with it, but that doesn't mean it's fair to describe it the way you did. The only difference between you and I is that I am considering different consequences than you. You are considering both the immediate impact on our freedom, and the longer term threatening of freedom in general. I am considering survival and our long term dependence on resources. The disagreement is simply on which one of those is a more important consideration; nothing else.

Ha! Who's complaining? You are the one in favor of legislating said changes. In other words, to use force. Because that's what making laws is, the use of force by the monopoly on violence that The State holds over people.
I'm for the organic, natural progression, not dragging mankind kicking and screaming with no regard to the unintentional (I'd hope) harm you'd have caused with your bowing to the alter of collectivism.
We aren't ants after all.
You on the other hand are all for using force on anyone who might stand in the way of what it is you deem is right for the world. Men have tried to take that mantle throughout human history and it always ends the same. Badly.

I don't see the role of government the same way you do, evidently. I believe that the government is simply a tool of society, that exists to redistribute resources collected (e.g. taxes, volunteer man-hours) in the most efficient way possible. However, I also believe that no such government can ever perfectly represent the will of the people, because most people don't care enough to take time out to be part of that government (and that's one reason why it needs to exist). So in practical terms, it's necessary to use the government to push people towards the best actions for society. Toeing the line is indeed important; if you push too hard you become tyrannical and undemocratic. But certainly the framework is already in place. Modern government does a large number of things that the public didn't explicitly ask for, but are quite necessary for managing an efficient society. In other words, I believe we have a government precisely because the average person is too busy to really sit and think about what needs to be done in the long term, so it falls on the government to make such decisions. It is my belief that if everyone sat and really thought about where we are headed as a society, they too would realize that one of the many things that could be done to improve our lot is to stop having so many offspring, as not much compares to adding another person to the world, to consume resources for 75 years. For many people, that is a personal sacrifice, because for whatever reason they want more than two children. And again, sacrifice is what is called for. Not a large sacrifice, however; in a society with an extensive welfare safety net, there is no particularly crucial reason to have multiple children.

When you say "We've got to do this or we're all gonna die!" is a form of coercion.

Clearly. The real question is, if it's really true that we're all gonna die, is the coercion unjustified? That is a central question here. The language is a bit strong; I don't believe we're all going to die. But I certainly believe some of us will, and that this event is preventable.

[Metsfanmax]

That's going to be my last contribution to this thread. I really dislike it when people start suggesting that my comments are the result of an inability to think for myself. It suggests that my opponent is not respecting me in the debate, and there is no point in having a serious discussion if one of the two parties is actively implying that his opponent is not to be taken seriously.

[thegreekdog]

It seems that alternative energy is typically only viable when supported by government incentives (I don't believe that, but that seems to be what history has shown). So, we have tax credits, tax breaks, and incentives for things like ethanol, solar, wind, electric cars (which I think are hysterical*), etc. Why are there no tax credits, breaks, or incentives for nuclear production?

* A few words on electric cars, for those who care. Electric cars are undoubtedly good for the environment. However, the way people go on about them cracks me up. One of my female friends, who is supposedly very environmentally friendly, has a Volt. She gets her electricity from coal. Just saying.

That's not really a fair standard of being environmentally friendly since coal produces the largest percentage of energy for us currently, and there isn't a choice on different powers produced by different means. However, it's good to note that power plants use a variety of sources for electricity, but the consumer doesn't get to really say. For example, mine and anybody else with Consumer's Energy has the following composition:



So, your friend may be getting 48.7% of her electricity from coal -- less than half.

BMO

I realize my post sounded smug. It was not smug in relation to people who purchase electric cars. It was smug in relation to my friend, who is a "crazy environmentalist."

[thegreekdog]

But nobody wants to sacrifice anything. Including yourself I'd imagine. At least nothing important (by your own reasoning) that is.

You're quite wrong about that. I would sacrifice a lot in the name of a better future for the planet. Paying more in taxes is the least I could do, and I would do that without hesitation.

There is no law, regulation, or other guidance indicating that you must pay the "correct" amount of tax. You are free to pay more in, and I would encourage you to do so considering you would pay more taxes without hesitation.

[Phatscotty]

Seriously, is Metsfan a Nazi? or even an Internationalist-azi?

[patches70]

Seriously, is Metsfan a Nazi? or even an Internationalist-azi?

No, he's not a Nazi (that I can tell), but he is a Tranzi (obviously).


http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... MadmhcspUg

[Phatscotty]

Seriously, is Metsfan a Nazi? or even an Internationalist-azi?

No, he's not a Nazi (that I can tell), but he is a Tranzi (obviously).


http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... MadmhcspUg

Goggles "tranzi"

hol-ee-shit

It was David Carr, a London-based Libertarian, who provided the memorable nickname for Transnational Progressivists when he called them "Tranzis." He explained, "A lot of us have known for some time there was something wrong in the world but it was difficult to pin down and put our fingers on. It was something that has no face and no name. Like fog it swirled all around us but not being corporeal we lashed out in all directions, landing blows on nothing. It was like an itch we could never scratch." We used to call these people "the left," and still do I suppose, but many of those pushing this apparently "left-wing" agenda seem to be high-level statesmen, the wealthy and the heads of multibillion-dollar corporations. Their behaviour cannot be explained away in terms of the Marxist "Class struggle." If the Tranzis are indeed leftists, they are so only in the sense that a frog was once a tadpole, having emerged long ago from its pond and jumped on to dry land.

Fonte is quick to forewarn us that this coming global administration will be no respecter of our freedoms and suggests that some form of racialist police state will be imposed. A state where the elites will encourage the historically oppressed to get even with their former oppressors. He claims that "dominant" groups will be obliged to yield power to "oppressed" groups, with the former being displaced from their jobs in the economic sphere until each category of task reflects the proportion of "oppressed" people in the population. Fonte believes that this will not be the end of it either. The proportion of "oppressed" people in the population will grow constantly. That's because another tenet of this Tranzi-ism holds that "dominant" countries must welcome immigrants from "oppressed" countries in unlimited numbers. Furthermore, if any "dominant" people protest, they will be jailed for "hate speech."

http://www.quebecoislibre.org/021221-6.htm

[Dukasaur]

That's going to be my last contribution to this thread. I really dislike it when people start suggesting that my comments are the result of an inability to think for myself. It suggests that my opponent is not respecting me in the debate, and there is no point in having a serious discussion if one of the two parties is actively implying that his opponent is not to be taken seriously.

+1

I disagree with a lot of what you have to say, but you're definitely one of the people who actually does think.