First - for those of you tl;dr folks who only have patience for just a few paragraphs -- a mini-rant you'll like:
Me? I don't want things to get to French Revolution levels! Or the kind of fury that was incited by the idiotic/evil Romanov czars. A moderate reformism, that is fiercely determined but calm, accomplishes far more! Moreover, there is a gentle radicalism that could awaken many (not all) of the dismally moronic inheritance brats to their own, ultimate self-interest. To ignore their addiction to flattering sycophants and instead help restore the Rooseveltean social contract that gave us all - including the rich - a better world.
That radical act would be for millions to march on all private jet terminals, on the same day, with signs and chants - NOT torches and pitchforks – prodding the elites with Mildly and Legally revolutionary cries:
“BACK into commercial First Class where you belong! Sit there in your leather seat that's only twice as comfortable as ours, sip your mimosa, enduring our delays and our frustrations, so you'll help fix them!
"Chat with us, when we upgrade and thereby broaden your horizons.
"Fly with us! Or else learn from Thomas Paine and Adam Smith and their peers how even a moderate, reasonable people can rediscover vigor.”
In fact… care to get this started? Offer a date that YOU think would be good one, for us all to march on the private jet terminals! The anniversary of commercial air travel? 9/11? Some Republican primary debate? The Dec 17th anniversary of Wright Brothers first flight? Will YOU help promote it?
And now to all the tl;dr stuff...
== Were we all 'programmed' by Hollywood? ==
I’m always ready to credit another contrarian who shines light on too-unquestioned assumptions. Take Jonathan Kirshner, a professor of international political economy at Cornell University and the author of "Hollywood's Last Golden Age: Politics, Society, and the Seventies Film in America."
I don’t quite agree with JK, that cinema became so much less critical since the 1970s. (The issues - and the world - grew more complex, but there's still plenty of griping going on.) Still, Kirshner does zoom in-upon something important:
“…that government will likely always be a reliable antagonist because the story line of lone, underdog individuals triumphing over the odds is uniquely American.”
That’s consonant with my #1 assertion in Vivid Tomorrows: Science Fiction and Hollywood, about why our films nearly always contain themes of individualism diversity, eccentricity and - especially - Suspicion of Authority (SoA).
It's hard even to conceived how such a relentless propaganda campaign - (you got your SoA reflex from those movies, myths and songs!) - would be propelled deliberately by some cabal. An anti-authority campaign dictated by a cabal... of authority figures?
Kirshner believes - as do I - that audiences themselves are the ones driving these narratives, not the studios or filmmakers, who chase after products that audiences will buy. He elaborates:
..."The government is very powerful, and so opposition to power is always a good trope. We also have things that are walled behind us in secrecy and so we are allowed to let our imaginations run wild."
Of course it’s more general than that. Suspicion Of Authority (SoA) is not always directed at Big Government. Conniving corporate kingpins will also do! And crime lords. And foreign despots and SPECTRE-style secret societies. And alien invaders, sure. Heck SoA is by now the most pervasive way to get an audience to bond with a protagonist – even in a romantic comedy! Especially if you include oppressive ‘authority figures’ like a status-conscious dad or gossipy mother-in-law.
SoA is one of the core memes conveyed in nearly all Hollywood flicks you ever loved, along with tolerance, diversity and personal eccentricity. Which helps explain why many monolithic regimes deeply fear Hollywood media and censor it, when possible.
And yes, all that propaganda that YOU suckled all your life helped to make YOU the fiery independent Authority-resisting gal or guy you are, today.
And yes, see a whole lot of examples in Vivid Tomorrows: Science Fiction and Hollywood.
== The struggle continues ==
Dig it, Trump's been 'betrayed' by more folks he earlier called 'great guys!' than all other U.S. presidents combined.== Facts beat blowhard yammers? ==
Ten minutes worth watching. Brian Cohen compellingly highlights Biden’s truly impressive accomplishments, followed by someone’s interview with Biden addressing the age issue. Alas, the recent ABC poll shows that a significant number of Americans may prefer America’s least successful and most criminal past president over one of America’s most objectively successful ones.
Far worse are those on America's (blue/sane) side of this phase of civil war, seeking any excuse to flake out and betray the only coalition that can save America, the planet and our kids. By jibbering off to the next version of standard, Nader-Stein-Kremlin treason.
Dig it. Biden may not be the Grant or Lincoln we want. But he has more than earned vigorous support. And yeah, if he fades a bit into taking more naps, I am willing to rely (as he does) on the 5000+ vastly skilled and qualified grownups he appointed to positions Trump had filled with jibbering horrors and potemkin stooges and 'great guys."
Those hugely competent adults are why we differ from 6000 years of nations focused on kings or dictators or 'strong men.'
Those grownups are why I sleep well, even knowing old JoBee may take naps.
== The Court ==
Yes to everything being said about the Roberts Court, which is proving to be by far the most corrupt and politically biased in 140 years, now distrusted by over 75% of Americans. But none of the essays and rants about this zero in on the Supreme Court majority's priority #1... the "Roberts Doctrine" that individual state legislatures have utter sovereignty to control their own elections, thus empowering cheats and travesties - like utter gerrymandering - so that the party in power can ensure they will remain in power, no matter what the people want. Which means...
...that democracy is meaningless, which is, after all, the stated position of the oligarchs who control AEI, Cato and other institutions of feudalism. Like the Republican Party.
Even were this not blatant betrayal and theft, the whole notion of state 'sovereignty' - especially to restrict voting rights - was settled in... um... 1865?
Alas, the Union side of this phase of civil war is stunningly incapable at laying things out clearly and cornering this cabal of blatantly suborned or blackmailed shills. e.g. there are ways to cancel out the writing rationalizations offered by John Roberts. Tactics that I have seen no Democratic politician or pundit even hint at. See a couple re gerrymandering at The "Minimal Overlap" Solution to Gerrymandering.
…and Gerrymandering American Democracy: More Fragile than we think.
== Final Miscellany ==
A fascinating example of the new computer art stunningly taking off… A Midjourney AI video visualization for Billy Joel's "We Didn't Start the Fire". Incredibly vivid… and the thing I resent is not Midjourney but Billy Joel, for not taking responsibility for maintenance of a song that’s a public cultural item, even if he still owns copyright! He should have issued updated versions every decade since… with a foundation to keep rolling (burning?) after he is gone.
Across the lifespan, and across every demographic group, Americans die at younger ages than their counterparts in other wealthy nations. An inflection made this worse when many Americans refused vaccines that lowered death rates in many other countries. And yes, the 2nd derivative of this curve seems to associate very strongly with the Trump Administration.
Your private-airport protest chants have too many words and not enough poetry. I suggest:
ReplyDeleteYour air is our air!
Back to First Class!
- which are, respectively, the complaint and the demand.
Or how about:
Fly with us, in line with us!
On the whole, I prefer King Log to King Stork. But I think we underestimate Biden, like how they underestimated Eisenhower.
The Orwellian Century continues with this thread.
ReplyDeleteFirst, with an unlikely Marxism-inspired fantasy about an angry proletariat rising up to foist mere First Class Status upon an oppressive private plane-owning oligarchy, even though it is the unelected expert managerial classes who attempt to crush the proletariat under the iron heel of CAFE standards & CO2 vouchers and thereby deprive the common man of their much loved freedom of movement, their petrol-powered lawn mowers, air conditioners, chain saws, barbecue grills, gas stoves & internal combustion engines and their prized automobiles.
Second, with a bold redefinition of democracy as the election of a demented political figurehead subject to MANAGEMENT BY "5000+ vastly skilled and qualified grownups" APPOINTEES who are neither elected nor directly answerable to the voters of our brave new sham democracy.
All these reveries are a tad unrealistic, as even the most uneducated slack-jawed yokel now knows that the Real Power lies in the hands of the unelected bureaucracies & managerial classes, and it is these unelected bureaucrats & middle class managers who will soon be the natural targets of proletarian anger and ire.
And, most likely, this anger & ire will take the form of bloody retribution -- think public functionaries roasting on spits -- not of some polite, mostly legal & properly channeled requests, and we rapidly approach this breaking point, as an endless parade of vacuous & supercilious middle managers continue to ignore the demands of the working class Gilets Jaunes everywhere.
Marxist Doctrine teaches that it is the Bourgeoisie (rather than the Aristocrats & Oligarchs) who are True Villains under Capitalism, with the term 'Bourgeois' being defined as the self-employed businessman, the merchant, the banker, the bureaucrat or the entrepreneur who acts as the financial intermediary between the feudal landlord and the peon.
Never forget that Marxists absolutely HATE and seek to DESTROY the middle classes, no matter how 'diamond-shaped' you believe this middle class to be, making you the worst kind of fool if you support Marxism in any form while being 'bourgeois'. The technical term for this kind of fool is 'Useful Idiot', but I believe this term transliterates into Modern Hebrew as auto-antisemite.
Best
The statistical data tracked at gapminder.org shows the US bounced back in terms of life expectancy in 2022.
ReplyDeleteTheir data also supports the notion that the second derivative saw a negative spike around the time of the 2010 midterm campaign and then it returned to zero until about when the pandemic struck.
Look at 2010-19 and you'll see a zero slope line fits better than a circle. A line with a positive slope fits from '93 to '10. It's that slope change that gives the second derivative spike.
Of course, the pandemic trough is stronger for us than many other nations. No surprise there, but it appears we've bounced back. What remains to be seen is whether we did so to a zero or positive slope line.
DP (from last time)
ReplyDeleteBecause "You" don't exist.
The "Self" is just an illusion created by brain chemistry.
Further more "free will" is an illusion.
That is incorrect, but it is a mistake many make. It comes from a limited definition for 'existence', so it might sound like a semantic disagreement. It isn't, though, if you've read up on some modern Cognition Theory stuff.
Take a peek at Douglas Hofstadter and his Strange Loop book and you'll see a very secular definition for 'self' that also covers the term 'soul' that is typically reserved for people of faith.
A 'self' exists as an accreting recursion structure that is no mere illusion. We even have a partial grasp on how they accrete experiences.
I'm not saying atheism is wrong.
I accept you at your word.
I'm saying it is inescapably nihilistic.
No. Many argue that is true, but modern theory and evidence suggest there is a difference between believing in 'self' and 'God' if you care to pursue the scientific/secular path for 'soul.'
DP,
ReplyDeleteI'm coming in a little late to this conversation, but from what I've read, it sounds like you are proclaiming that either there is one, single meaning of life for all people everywhere - yours - or else there is no meaning whatsoever. This is a pretty extremist position that kind of misses the fact that you are an individual. No matter how hard you try to conform to someone else's idea of meaning (or anything else), you simply can't do it, because you are a unique individual with a unique composition and a unique life history, so everything you think, you think in your own unique way. Like all thought, meaning is individual.
But your issue runs deeper than just that. Ernst Mayr, one of the people who created the Modern Synthesis, described it as "typological thinking" as opposed to "population thinking."
https://philpapers.org/rec/MAYTVP
But to get this across in perhaps a gentler way, I recommend you read a book called "Why Fish Don't Exist" by Lulu Miller.
https://www.amazon.com/Why-Fish-Dont-Exist-Hidden/dp/1501160346/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1691889939&sr=8-1
The audio edition includes some material at the end that makes it more worthwhile in terms of getting the point across. Ultimately the issue is this: life is not meaningless because we all mean something to each other. That is far, far from nihilism. I hope you enjoy the book.
PSB
As long as I've tossed out a book (and one I would recommend to anyone who works with any sort of taxonomy), I'd like to bring up one Im just finished a couple nights ago. Neurochemistry is a subject I have found very useful in the last couple decades, and I'm always trying to update my understanding. I came across "The Molecule of More: How a Single Chemical in Your Brain Drives Love, Sex, and Creativity--and Will Determine the Fate of the Human Race." At first I was concerned, given how hyped the subtitle sounds, but insane editors do that to otherwise responsible writers all the time, along with foisting hyper sexual cover art on them, and the author has an MD, so maybe? It's about the role of dopamine in the human brain, and I was quite pleased with it once I got past the introductory hype and into the meat of the science.
ReplyDeleteOne of the things that grabbed my attention was something the author never said. So much of what has been discovered about what dopamine does turns out to be things that we have traditionally associated with testosterone. He never said the T-word, and made almost no reference to sex whatsoever, but given the things he showed about what dopamine does, it's pretty clear to me that we really need to reassess our ideas about gender and motivation. It isn't testosterone that drives creation, achievement and excellence, it's dopamine. But unlike testosterone, dopamine is pretty evenly distributed in men and women. If dopamine is the molecule of more, oxytocin is the molecule of love, and serotonin is the molecule of joy, testosterone is the molecule of ego. However, now I think I will have to find more up-to-date info on testosterone (more recent than Sapolsky's old The Trouble with Testosterone) to see if there are any new revelations about it in the science.
One tidbit of advice from the last chapter: dopamine drives motivation and pursuit, but by itself it lets you down, robbing you of joy. If you're looking for Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, giving in to its constant drive to acquire will let you down every time. What the author advises is to combine dopamine with other neurochemicals like oxytocin, serotonin, the endorphins, and the endocannabinoids. The way to do that is to exercise creativity in ways that involve your hands and body. Yes, handicrafts and arts. There's a reason why most professional scientists have artistic hobbies on the side. They are largely dopamine driven to excellence in their fields, but dopamine does not satisfy by itself.
In spite of the hype, I would recommend this book to anyone who wants to understand those crazy creatures we call humans.
Bon apetÃte!
PSB
Just a quick skim. But I did pause where poor locum pretends to know something about Marx! Like all his generation, he knows nothing about the topic. But -raving - in fact everything he said about it is almost diametrically opposite to fact.
ReplyDeleteBu off you go. Fizz away. At least he makes no pretense in his rabid hated of all nerds.
zzz
“…that government will likely always be a reliable antagonist because the story line of lone, underdog individuals triumphing over the odds is uniquely American.”
ReplyDeleteWhere in heaven did you get the notion that the lone underdog is uniquely American???
This has been a major part of the Scottish heritage for a thousand years longer than America has existed - and the Scots have not been alone in this
What are your thoughts on Schipol airport's intention to ban private jets?
ReplyDeleteWhere in heaven did you get the notion that the lone underdog is uniquely American???
ReplyDeleteFrom the American Exceptionalism promoted by Hollywood? :-)
Apparently the flight plans of the private jets are part of the public record; something I didn't even know until such information started to be suppressed at the home of free speech.
ReplyDeleteMy anthem in the Billy Joel catalog will always be Allentown. Billy Joel is one of the two so-called baby boomers who get it about so-called generation X.
ReplyDeleteMy anthem in the Billy Joel catalog will always be Allentown. Billy Joel is one of the two so-called baby boomers who get it about so-called generation X.
ReplyDeleteWhich is interesting, because he apparently started writing it in the 70s, so pre-dating generation X being in the workforce.
(I'm either a late boomer or early gen-x depending on where you draw the line. In the 70s Macleans magazine had an article about my age group calling us "generation X" because we were nameless in the shadow of the baby boomers who preceded us. A few years later the name got taken over by people younger than us, leaving us still nameless.)
Great song, BTW.
Duncan the Scots-Irish were fundamental in spurring the American frontier, self-made mentality. Look up the Battle of King's Mountain.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.marxists.org/archive/kun-bela/1918/05/04.htm
ReplyDeleteMarx and the Middle Classes:
“The internal enemy” of the proletarian Russian Revolution is constituted first and foremost by the lower middle classes. The expropriation of the expropriators being carried out at present does not represent the most serious obstacle in the path of proletarian dictatorship. In the path of the expropriation of capital the obstacles are of a purely objective nature. The small group of large capitalists has not the masses on its side, and therefore speedily becomes powerless in face of the armed proletariat. The lower middle classes of society, on the other hand, represent a considerable section of the population, especially in Russia — to say nothing of the propertied section of the peasantry...
This lower middle-class — as “The Communist Manifesto” proclaims — “stands half-way between the proletariat and the capitalist class. Being a necessary complement of capitalist society, this class is constantly being reborn.” Composed of extremely mixed elements of the pre-capitalist epoch — the so-called “toiling intelligentsia,” the lackeys of the capitalist class — this class was to be found, in France, in Switzerland, and to a certain extent in Germany, at the advanced posts of the revolution of 1848...
The lower middle-class is not fit to wield power, and a long government by it is unthinkable. This, first and foremost, for economic reasons: the small shopkeeper is the debtor of the great capitalist, and must remain in dependence on him as long as there exists the system of credit — which cannot be destroyed while the domination of private property continues...
Every compromise with the upper bourgeoisie is treachery to the proletarian revolution. Every compromise with the lower middle-class after the victory of the revolution would mean the restoration of the supremacy of the upper bourgeoisie — the restoration of capitalist rule...
And this is the very reason why the lower middle-class masses are the most dangerous enemies of the dictatorship of the proletariat. They represent a very strong section of society. Their special interests are absolutely incompatible with the economic disturbances which are the inevitable accompaniment of transitional periods.
The disturbance of credit cuts the ground from under their feet. They begin shouting for order, for the strengthening of credit, in such a way that every concession to them leads in effect to a complete restoration of the old order.
The bearers of middle-class philosophy, who took up their stand as critics of capitalism in the working-class movement at the time when that movement was still in the stage merely of a critical attitude towards capitalism, and who brought in with them a peculiarly lower middle-class outlook, feel disillusioned when the era of decisive battle arrives. Their supremacy in the realm of ideas can continue no longer; while it is beyond their powers to free themselves from the lower middle-class-world-concept...
The Revolution, when celebrating the centenary of Marx’s birth, will not forget the sentence he passed on the lower middle class.
The above quotes show how Marxism & Socialism are literally anathema to both Capitalism & the Middle Classes, proving once & for all that all those who dabble in social 'fairness, justice & equity' are the very real self-hating enemies of all things related to Capitalism, Merit & the Middle Class.
Check & Mate.
Best
Scots-Irish were fundamental in spurring the American frontier, self-made mentality
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely!
Which makes my point that the attitude was not and never has been a specifically "American" thing
Trump Airways:
ReplyDelete“Coffee, tea, or Putin?”
Duncan seriously?
ReplyDelete"Which makes my point that the attitude was not and never has been a specifically "American" thing"
It is EXACTLY an American thing. why do you think the Scots-Irish CAME HERE in such droves? To express it without being hanged.
---
Despite reams of cut-n-paste, poor locun could not praphrase or interpret those very same paragraphs were his very life to depend on it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletemcsandberg,
ReplyDeleteNot too many people who hang out with Dr. Brin are that stupid. Most people hear are interested in facts and can tell bullshit propaganda when they read it.
https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/06/23/two-thirds-of-americans-think-government-should-do-more-on-climate/
PSB
The Scots have been "Being Scots" in Scotland and in about 3/4 of the world for hundreds of years
ReplyDeleteThey did not need to go to America to behave as Scots!!
mcsandberg,
ReplyDeleteThe real issue is that far too many Americans fall for the bullshit propaganda called Social Darwinism, that proclaims the rich to be superior beings who deserve to have more money than they could possibly use in their or their great grandchildren's lifetimes while other people starve.
Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
so·cial Dar·win·ism
noun
noun: social Darwinism
the theory that individuals, groups, and peoples are subject to the same Darwinian laws of natural selection as plants and animals. Now largely discredited, social Darwinism was advocated by Herbert Spencer and others in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and was used to justify political conservatism, imperialism, and racism and to discourage intervention and reform.
PSB
Duncan,
ReplyDeleteI strongly suspect that your discussion with Dr. Brin is kind of moot. In any group of people that consists of millions, you are going to find it all. Calling a specific attitude "Scottish" or "American" or anything is just propaganda. In the US this is tied in directly with our charter myth, the claim that anyone can succeed here if they want to. The claim made more sense in the days when aristocracy ruled, and prevented most people from having successful lives. Today we have traded the old aristocracy for a new aristocracy consisting of corporate executives, who work hard to ensure that their own children inherit their caste status while crushing anyone else's attempts at upward social mobility. Obviously the tendency has not yet been hardened into law, but the Republicans are working on it.
PSB
PSB: Not too many people who hang out with Dr. Brin are that stupid
ReplyDeleteAlso, the name of this blog implies that blared reports of suspect trends will likely evoke images of lemmings shambling over a cliff.
My reason for arranging demonstrations at private jet terminals is less about climate than about class war. If they get the point there, we can go back to a Rooseveltean arrangement that's good for all, and no more talk of tumbrels. Alas, the flattery addicts and delusional lords seem determined to get that word into circulation as their next mode of transport, after private jets.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMCSandberg that's not fair. Ask the same question of citizens willing to vote for TAXES on carbon and such.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAs many as 1 in 30, in 2013?
ReplyDeleteI would say the ratio of people willing to pay more for a green energy opt-in is even lower these days.
Because wind and solar are now by far the cheapest source of energy, and looks set to achieve global production parity with all other sources by 2030.
Will you be opting out, McSandberg?
mcsandburg:
ReplyDeletepeople are figuring out that nothing unusual is happening and are getting very angry at the greens trying to destroy their jobs and economies:
Back when the year 1998 was still the hottest on record and we were a decade into the 21st century, you might have been able to get away with that assertion. It's a joke now. Everything that happens these days is unusual, from weeks on end in Arizona that don't go below 90 degrees to ocean temperatures off of Florida higher than body temperature to rainfall in the northeast measuring in tens of inches at a time.
Even more alarming for the climate activist community should be the backlash to climate policies in Western Europe.
You assume that the "climate activist community" is only interested in their own agenda for some partisan reason. If what you cite is true, we are saddened on behalf of the survivability of all humanity. If you climate deniers think this is a "win" for you, you are being short-sighted in the same way that that idiot in Baghdad was when he insisted that American planes were nowhere near Baghdad as the bombs were actually falling.
Less than 1 in 30 were actually willing to pay.
When asked what? "Would you be willing to pay extra to promote a green agenda?" or something political like that? What about "How much are Florida residents already paying because they can't insure their homes?" Or "How much will Europeans pay for heat when the North Atlantic drift stops flowing?" Or "How much is flood damage costing people in the south suburbs of Chicago?"
If people are unwilling to pay for green energy, it's not because they don't think the climate is changing for the worse. It's because they don't think what they're being asked to do will actually help. Which is a realistic concern, but is a different thing from "nothing unusual is happening." In fact, the opposite thing.
And per the discussion in the previous comments, climate change is not affected by how many people believe in it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletemcsandberg,
ReplyDeleteBe careful with that 1 in 30 buy-in ratio. I recall being offered such an 'opportunity' by my utility years ago. The offer was buried in legalese. It was very easy to miss it since the utility didn't want to sell it. They were being forced to try, so they did less than a half-assed job doing it.
I wound up buying in, but as part of a trade. What they really wanted to pitch back then was a peak-shaving plan. They needed to be able to shutter some of the load during the worst days at peak demand. They offered a discount if we let them do it and a few different ways they COULD do it with different rate cuts. I combined one of those with a re-usable option and made it come out a wash.
------
It's important to realize that MANY of us don't trust our electric utility to be anything other than a faceless monopoly. They could offer a plan to cure all cancer and educate and feed all children and many of us would be skeptical. We wouldn't believe the humanitarian offer being made.
I'm not exaggerating on this. I used to work for CAISO. It is impressive how low an opinion consumers have for their utilities. It's right down there with other people's Congress Critters.
mcsandberg
ReplyDeleteCapital cost of Wind is higher than natural gas!!
Who would have thunkit!!
So the capital cost for power source where you pay for the capital then just maintenance is more expensive than one where you have to keep paying for the fuel
In other news - water is wet
Clearly not opting out. Not responding directly, either.
ReplyDeleteWhy the focus on *offshore* wind? Could it be because it is the most expensive renewables option? (although offshore costs are also reducing). When I last checked a couple of years ago, solar plants cost under $1,000,000/MW of generating power: which is about 9 times less than the values McSandberg is quoting.
Meanwhile, global renewable capacity is exploding.
'How they do it' with batteries is to use them to level a distributed grid system rather than obsess over what storage is needed to back up one specific power plant for a given time. While the hairball theorem might require the wind not to be blowing at one point on the Earth's surface at least, it's usually blowing somewhere.
mcsandberg said...
ReplyDeleteThe same problem occurs - people are always willing to impose taxes on others. To really judge the support or opposition to something, the cost has to be paid personally.
No, the question is whether they are willing to impose taxes on themselves (as well as others).
Some people are willing to impose costs on themselves (individually) just because they think it is the right thing to do. Most people are unwilling to impose costs on themselves (at least not at more than a minimal level) unless they think that doing so will make a difference. If they believe that any personal sacrifice on their part will be wiped out by indulgence on the part of others, they won't be willing to sacrifice (much).
David, I think the pushback you are getting to the quote is because it explicitly said that "underdog individuals triumphing over the odds is uniquely American". If it had said 'especially' or even 'paradigmatically' then I doubt that there would be any objection. After all, there is something really USAmerican about that trope, and it appears far more in American culture (film, novels, etc.) than in many others. But it does not appear only in American culture.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMaybe the most important thing a crime boss needs to do is be loyal to his minions. If he's loyal to them, they will be loyal to him.
ReplyDeleteTrump has zero interest in being loyal to his minions,
The only people Trump respects are people who are bigger bullies than he is.
Alfred Differ:
ReplyDeleteIt's important to realize that MANY of us don't trust our electric utility to be anything other than a faceless monopoly. They could offer a plan to cure all cancer and educate and feed all children and many of us would be skeptical. We wouldn't believe the humanitarian offer being made.
That's an excellent point. I've had offers to sign something to switch my electricity to green energy and I've turned it down because the offer just smacks of a hidden agenda. It usually says something to the effect that it won't affect my costs--it will just have the provider use renewable energy instead of the other kind as my source. My unspoken question was, "If the utility is committed to renewables, and if the cost is the same, what permission do they need from me to use renewables?" It seemed obvious that my signature would be used for some hidden purpose which would necessarily not be in my interest.
This sort of thing is analogous to the recent vote in "Issue 1" in Ohio. In a vacuum, it might be a good idea to require a 60% supermajority to amend the state constitution. After all, at the federal level, an amendment takes 67% of congress and 75% of the states.
However, voters appropriately saw that what they were being asked to forfeit their power to their gerrymandered legislature in general and to thwart a November pro-choice amendment in particular. Voters appropriately said, "Don't piss on me and tell me it's raining."
Likewise with some green energy proposals.
Lena - "I'm coming in a little late to this conversation, but from what I've read, it sounds like you are proclaiming that either there is one, single meaning of life for all people everywhere - yours - or else there is no meaning whatsoever."
ReplyDeleteNope. In a purely accidental universe nobody's meaning of life is valid, not even mine.
"The common thread in the literature of the existentialists is coping with the emotional anguish arising from our confrontation with nothingness, and they expended great energy responding to the question of whether surviving it was possible. Their answer was a qualified "Yes," advocating a formula of passionate commitment and impassive stoicism. In retrospect, it was an anecdote tinged with desperation because in an absurd world there are absolutely no guidelines, and any course of action is problematic. Passionate commitment, be it to conquest, creation, or whatever, is itself meaningless. Enter nihilism."
Capital cost of Wind is higher than natural gas!!
ReplyDeleteReally? Even when you include all the subsidies that fossil fuels get as part of the cost of natural gas?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAlfred, you have to be real careful when reading Hofstadter (either I am a strange loop or GEB) who literally said that consciousness is an illusion, along with free will, although both are unavoidable, powerful mirages yet somehow never explaining how the act of an illusion viewing itself gives rise to the sense of Self.
ReplyDeleteSame goes for Dennet whose "Consciousness Explained" would be better titled as "Consciousness Explained Away". In either case there is a difference between explaining consciousness and merely describing it.
My first critique is that his line of reasoning fails in accordance with the bootstrapping problem - in that consciousness is the reflection in a mirror that can somehow see itself. How does such a process get started in the first place?
Secondly, his theory is not subject to reductionism. You can't reduce consciousness to the individual atoms that exchange electrons in individual neurons. OTOH I can examine the strength of a steel I-beam in accordance with the properties of its constituent atoms. Strange loop theory is by default a wholistic approach - and therefore not a scientific explanation.
Then there is Dawkins meme theory.
ReplyDeleteDawkins and his protege Susan Blackmore have taken their hard reductionism to new heights (or lows) with their elimination of the "Self". Dawkins, etal have always hated DesCartes "I think, therefore I am" because it implies some sort of ghost in the machine which can't be accounted for by purely mechanistic explanations. Dawkins meme concept has been taken to its logical conclusion by Susan Blackmore who makes the claim that the Self is merely an illusion. Dawkins has adopted this position. Let the following quotes illustrate this:
In a recent joint lecture, Dawkins asked his colleague Steven Pinker:
"Am I right to think that the feeling I have that I'm a single entity, who makes decisions, and loves and hates and has political views and things is a kind of illusion that has come about because Darwinian selection found it expedient to create that illusion of unitariness rather than let us be a society of mind?"
Pinker answered affirmatively that "the fact that the brain ultimately controls a body that has to be in one place at one time may impose the need for some kind of circuit . . . that coordinates the different agendas of the different parts of the brain to ensure that the whole body goes in one direction." That hypothetical circuit is all that remains of the illusion of a free-acting self. [The Dawkins-Pinker exchange is available in the archives at www.edge.org]
And from a recent interview:
Stangroom: One final question about hard determinism. I think at the end of The Selfish Gene you said that one of the important things about human beings is that they are able to choose to act otherwise than perhaps their selfish genes would have them. Obviously, however, for a hard determinist the choices we make are themselves determined. In an interview with The Third Way you indicated that you had some sympathy with Susan Blackmore's view that
"The idea that there is a self in there that decides things, acts and is responsible.is a whopping great illusion. The self we construct is just an illusion because actually there's only brains and chemicals."
Is your position then that statements about consciousness or selfhood will ultimately be reducible to statements about neurons and chemicals?
Dawkins: I suppose that philosophically I am committed to that view because I think that everything about life is a product of the evolutionary process and consciousness must be a manifestation of the evolutionary process, presumably via brains. So I think that has got to mean that consciousness is ultimately a material phenomenon."
Without a soul, Blackmore and Dawkins are quite right, mind, consciousness and self awareness are mere illusions. So the entity which calls itself Alfred doesn't really exist, its all just an illusion. Dawkins is correct when he claims that illusions are not capable of true volition, meaning or purpose. There is no Alfred to create his own meaning. The lights are on, but there isn't anybody at home.
Dawkins, for al of his faults (he's actually something of a smug jerk) at least has the courage to embrace the nihilism inherent in atheism.
Dawkins is an atheist with cojones.
I've made two personal choices in regards to consciousness and meaning.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the New Mysterian position which states that we simply are not intelligent enough to understand our own consciousness. It will be forever a mystery beyond our ken. Any attempts to explain Self, whether an immaterial Soul or a strange Loop) are untestable, unverifiable and unfalsifiable. No explanation of Self can ever be scientific. All explanations of self are therefore faith statements.
As such, since every explanation is a faith statement, I've chosen a Kierkegaard-ian "leap of faith" in believing in both the Soul and God - avoiding the nihilism inherent in atheism. Of course I could be wrong (there is no way of proving it either way since all statements on this issue are faith statements) and existence may really be inescapably nihilistic.
DP:
ReplyDeleteNope. In a purely accidental universe nobody's meaning of life is valid, not even mine.
Ok, who created God? If God has just always existed without being created, then according to you, He is not capable of creating meaning out of whole cloth either. Except you apparently don't have the cojones to accept that it's turtles all the way down. You have to hold onto the crutch that God can create meaning, but no one else can.
Without a soul, Blackmore and Dawkins are quite right, mind, consciousness and self awareness are mere illusions. So the entity which calls itself Alfred doesn't really exist, its all just an illusion.
It took me multiple years to pry out of locumranch the reason he uses British spelling. I'm nothing but patient. So I'm going to keep asking this question until you grow the cojones to answer it:
If consciousness is only an illusion, who exactly is having his perceptions fooled by that illusion?
DP:
ReplyDeleteI've chosen a Kierkegaard-ian "leap of faith" in believing in both the Soul and God - avoiding the nihilism inherent in atheism
Why can't someone believe in the soul (whatever that is) and not God? Wouldn't that also involve the nihilism you think is inherent in atheism, since that nihilism is predicated on the fact that the self is only an illusion? If you accept a soul which is not an illusion, then why can't that soul be responsible for meaning? Why must it be God or nothing?
* * *
Maybe Kurt Vonnegut's Dwayne Hoover character in Breakfast of Champions had a point. Maybe no one actually exists except me, and all the rest of you are illusions. I don't believe that to be the case, but I'll admit that there's an element of faith involved in that belief. I can't absolutely prove that you exist any more than you can absolutely know that I exist. But I know that I exist. In a sense, that's all I can know for certain.
DP: there is a difference between explaining consciousness and merely describing it
ReplyDeleteI've done my level best to read Hofstadter, Dennett, Pinker, and especially Dawkins - even some Kierkegaard!!. No small time investment for a poor reader and philosophy novice like me. The only field that I really know is hardware/software at or near the gate level. Fortunately, the transistor is the root 'agent' in artificial computation. Explaining consciousness is perhaps over-ambitious, but replicating/emulating it is definitely not IMHO. Also, I suspect that A.I. can truly be applied in this arena, unlike the extreme, 'phantom in the machine' abstraction of generative mimicry like ChatGPT, which BTW is not even the best-in-class anymore. To mangle Spock, A.I. secrets are the most fleeting of all.
"Illusion" doesn't mean that something doesn't exist, it means that something isn't what it appears to be. That's just one of many mistakes in your very logical reasoning, DP.
ReplyDeleteIt's taken a while, but by your latest it seems that your main dilemma is Free Will. Consciousness too, which is necessary for Free Will. When so-called determinists* say there is no Free Will what they mean is that there is no such thing as magic. They mean that whatever the processes that constitute decision making in humans those processes are constrained by natural laws just the same as all the other phenomena in our reality. That's it.
* Really it should be "natural lawists" rather than determinists. It really doesn't matter what the laws of physics are, whether our reality is fully deterministic, fully probabilistic or some combination of both with a certain amount of randomness thrown in too, it doesn't matter. That's not the point. The point is that all phenomena are bound by those natural laws, including human minds. This is contrary to many older concepts of Free Will with names like Religious, Libertarian, Contra-causal and similar, which claim that human minds can make decisions from a privileged position unbound by the natural laws that everything else in the universe follow.
mcsandberg,
ReplyDeleteYou are making it quite clear that you are here with an agenda, which is not going to get you anywhere with this particular community. We know to ask the Cui bono question of everything. Now you haven't told us where you have personal skin in the game. Do you work in the fossil fuels industry, for a right-wing PAC, run bake sales to support fascist causes? Or have your corporate masters offered you an administrative position in the new Waffen SS the Republicans are making on their behalf?
If you had come here with figures and genuine concerns, people would be searching out ways to improve then system. That's not what you are here for. It's quite plain that you are here to spread fascist propaganda and undercut the entire human race for the sake of a handful of addicted, insatiable billionaires. Our faux rancher will b bobblehead everything you say, but that's no victory for Team Self-Servative.
You are transparent.
The death toll in Maui for the deadliest wildfire in American history sits at 96, but with hundreds of people still missing, there is no doubt that number will continue to climb for some time.
Not only are you transparent, you are a deeply, fundamentally execrable sample of all that is evil in human beings.
And you are nowhere near as smart as you think you are. Back under your bridge!
PSB
DP
ReplyDeleteA genuine question. What exactly do you mean by "God"? You say you believe in God, but I have no idea what that means.
DP,
ReplyDeleteWhile you aren't anywhere near the fecal level of our Mr. Sandberg, your insistence that no meaning is possible without your meaning being universal is no more than another just-so story. It is commonly said among anthropologists - the people who study humans for a living - that man is a meaning-seeking animal. That means that humans make their own meaning, whether there is any actually there or not. Ever heard of pareidolia? I recommend you give it a whirl.
But how about first you subject yourself to the same question I tossed out at the other reality denier: Cui bono. Who benefits? If we are to blindly accept your proposition that only your imaginary friend can create meaning, what does that mean for human society? Religion has always served the purpose of controlling the people for the benefit of the authorities, be they secular or religious authorities. It's far more economical to convince people that some mythical monster is watching their every move and will punish them horrifically if they disobey the authorities than to pay enough secret police to keep the flock in line. Whether we're talking about ancient Sumerian God-Kings, Roman Emperors in partnership with their high priests, the Holy Inquisition authorizing local mayors to burn heretics at the stake (in the story of Giordano Bruno, no one mentions the fact that the Mayor of Rome, who ordered the burning, was the brother of the Pope who declared him a heretic), or today's Evangeliban trying to destroy the First Amendment to impose their will on the people, it's always the same phenomenon.
So besides propping up your own ego and illustrating the Sunk Cost Effect, who benefits from your attack on humanity?
PSB
LH - "If consciousness is only an illusion, who exactly is having his perceptions fooled by that illusion?"
ReplyDeleteExactly.
The Illusion observes itself.
Thus making the Strange Loop inherently contradictory (or as Hofstadter would call it "a paradox').
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletemcsandberg,
ReplyDeleteThe madness is yours. If humanity doesn't make the switch, the death and misery that has already begun will reach Biblical proportions. Go away.
PSB
Lena
ReplyDeleteThere is no reason for panic. Even the actual IPCC report, past the executive summary, isn’t peddling panic https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/07/30/the-ipcc-says-no-climate-crisis/.
@PSB,
ReplyDeleteThis is Dr Brin's blog, not yours. It's not for you to send anyone away. Ok?
* * *
DP:
The Illusion observes itself.
Thus making the Strange Loop inherently contradictory (or as Hofstadter would call it "a paradox').
I can't even.
I don't consider myself a brave warrior, but there are a few things I will not do to help the fascists. I will not betray Julia. I will not love Big Brother. And I will not concede that two plus two equals whatever the Party says it does. In that same vein, I will not be convinced that I don't exist. Others here on this list and elsewhere have tried to convince me and they've also thrown out a lot of science and philosophy, none of which amounts to more than proofs that bees can't fly or that supersonic travel is impossible.
I can't prove it to you, but I know for a fact that I exist. The freedom to say that is the same as the freedom to say that two plus two is four. What that says about "meaning" or "purpose", I really don't have a dog in that fight. All I can say on that score is that you are factually wrong to assert that atheists must be in panic mode over the lack of a supernatural basis for meaning and purpose.
I can't prove it to you, but I know for a fact that I exist.
ReplyDeleteHow is this statement falsifiable?
It isn't.
Therefore it is not a scientific statement.
It's a faith statement.
No different than: "I can't prove it to you, but I know for a fact that God exists."
mcsandburg:
ReplyDeleteI don't work for the fossil fuel industry, but am heavily dependent on fossil fuels
So do you think there's an infinite supply? What do you think you will do when the wells dry up, or when what is left becomes more and more cost-prohibitive? Or do you think you'll be dead by then, so you don't care what befalls everyone else?
Also, since this thread is largely going philosophical, there is a logical fallacy in denying a fact because the implications of that fact are different from what you would wish. Whether or not a particular proposal for combating climate change is viable or not, continuing as we are with fossil fuels is contributing to climate change making the earth much more inhospitable to us. That is a truth whether or not there is any economical, political, or practical way to stop doing it. "I'm married to my lifestyle, so I'm going to keep on instead of changing for as long as I can," is an understandable position. But the bridge too far you seem to be taking is "Nothing unusual is happening," because you don't want to admit that staying the course has costs just as moving towards renewables does.
Lena - "your insistence that no meaning is possible without your meaning being universal is no more than another just-so story."
ReplyDeleteNope, just basic logic and applied existentialism.
Let me repeat:
"because in an absurd world there are absolutely no guidelines, and any course of action is problematic. Passionate commitment, be it to conquest, creation, or whatever, is itself meaningless. Enter nihilism."
DP:
ReplyDeleteNo different than: "I can't prove it to you, but I know for a fact that God exists."
The truth I am trying to get across is not "I exist", but "I know that I exist." Whether you believe that I know that I exist is immaterial.
I don't care whether you believe that I personally exist. I'm using myself as an example, but my general assertion is that a conscious being knows that he is conscious. That even if the conscious being is an impossible phenomenon, that impossible phenomenon must still exist in order to perceive itself.
The only such being that you can know this about is you. I'm not surprised that you might question whether other people exist. I'm surprised that you don't perceive your own existence as a fact. You are correct that it is a leap of faith on my part to assume that other people perceive their own existence the same way I do. Maybe you don't. In that case, go with God. I have no reason to care. It's when you try to instruct me on my own existence that I go into "Don't piss on me and tell me it's raining" mode.
DP:
ReplyDeletePassionate commitment, be it to conquest, creation, or whatever, is itself meaningless. Enter nihilism.
I'm pretty sure that everyone here doesn't mean the same thing by "self" or "exist", and it also seems like we mean different things by "meaning". Unless we condescend to actually define our terms, we might as well be saying, "Without God, life has no jdsfjkf, because the definition of 'dsfjkf' is 'a property given to life by God.'"
What Dawkins etc (and nearly all others) ignore is the emergent effects that occur when one layer of activity creates a new, ‘higher” layer.
ReplyDeleteCells are vast communities of sub cellular entities that do their various tasks & business in a manner that is generally at least as much COMPETITIVE as cooperative, making and ‘selling’ chemicals and structures to each other, much like an economy. Yet the cell seems from the outside to be a consistent, self-cooperative entity.
In EARTH I describe how this same effect happens at the next layer between cells in a macro organism, especially during fetal development, when proto neurons compete with each other savagely, over growth factors, resulting in whole ecosystem structures – jungles and forests and deserts, across the developing infant brain: structures that combine into vastly better mental processes, wherein many NEXT-layer PERSONALITY drives and components continue to compete across life… yet, the thing that emerges portrays with some verisimilitude a unitary organism, actively and effectively pursuing goals…
…goals that CHANGE as the org satisfies ever-higher layers of Maslowe’s hierarchy of needs. All the way to abstractions that the cellular and mammal and ape and caveman brains that dwell inside our cortex could never begin to perceive, let alone understand.
And sure, often these higher ‘value’ goals (e.g. religion) can often be just surface justifications for more brutal, lower drives like vengeance, jealously, fear and avarice. And yet… 50,000 years ago (I believe, and argue in EXISTENCE), there came a new layering as humans became able to re-program their thinking modes completely by culture, leading to many subsequent major, 'renaissance' shifts in our tools, societies and things we can perceive/contemplate.
The crux: Dawkins is completely loony if h thinks he can ascribe the emergent outcomes from those new and vividly unpredictable layers entirely to earlier evolved selection.
---
MCSandberg... It took 240 years for carbon fueld thermal engines to reach present levels of efficiency that are ALREADY being exceeded by (effectively) just 30 years of vigorous development of alternative systems. Efficiencies of solar-wind etc are skyrocketing under both govt subsidy and very intense market competition - the latter, in effect for just a decade or so.
Your alternative of a Manhattan style project... while the world burns... is both old fashioned and blatantly wrong. We have learned methods... market competition stimulated by govt subsidies that subside and the market provides...
... that are working very well, despite obstruction by a Denialist Cult who never, ever, ever have the guts to step up with stakes for fact based wagers. e.g. over ocean acidification.
Nevertheless, you seem polite and are welcome here.
DP,
ReplyDeleteYou are too hooked on a particular definition of 'illusion' as something that isn't there. Not real. There are such things as POV illusions that result in misinterpretations of a thing that is actually there, but the illusion itself is real enough.
Hofstadter combined with a bit of Popper's view of things demonstrates my point.
Consider Beethoven's Ninth Symphony.
1. When being played it exists in an objective sense as vibrations in the air. Sound.
2. When being played it exists in a subjective sense because sound produces sensory responses.
3. When not being played it exists as printed sheet music and whatever else a conductor needs to produce it.
All of these are present-tense forms of existence, so the pass a sniff test for people focused objective reality even if we have trouble agreeing on what it all is. Each of them passes because any two observers can be witness to the same observation event.
Now suppose no one is playing it at the moment. Does it exist? Sure. By #3.
Now imagine someone burns all the books. Does it exist? I argue 'Yes' because many of us remember it. It exists as a residue in the accreted 'selves' of former audiences.
I CAN recall events and replay them (imperfectly) in my head, so information is present in the recursion structure. That's what brains DO because it is that technique we use to identify tigers crouching in bushes preparing to spring on us. Many of us can recall the rattlesnake's warning without actually being near one and our heart rate jumps when we do.
Hofstadter's recursion loops contain information.
———
My first critique is that his line of reasoning fails in accordance with the bootstrapping problem…
As for starting one of those loops, it's pretty easy. A man and a woman get together…
As for getting information into and out of those loops, that is also pretty easy. Just watch a child doing it.
Secondly, his theory is not subject to reductionism.
I'm not convinced of that. I do side with Hofstadter that looking at the brain misses the point, though. A mind is a structure of potentials and activity on a brain. I don't know if a mind is subject to reductionism yet, but I suspect it is.
Proof is for artificial systems like logic and maths. Reality is about assessing evidence to judge how much credence a claim warrants.
ReplyDeleteRepeating poorly constructed logical statements and insisting that your propositions necessarily follow from your premises even though they appear to be non sequitur, does not really answer any of the questions people have been asking you. Clearly define your terms. Explain why you think your propositions follow inexorably from your premises. I think what will be revealed is that you have some strongly held prior commitment(s).
mcsandburg,
ReplyDeleteNo panic required, just observation of the facts, and some basic sense of human decency.
PSB
Larry,
ReplyDeleteSorry. I have little patience with people who are actively working against humanity. When I was a wee lad, my Sunday School teachers often told me that I was remarkably patient. The phrase I often heard was, "Patience is with you." (Star Wars was new and very much in the air back then.) These days, though, when the stakes are so high and the body counts keep rising, having patience borders on criminality.
My apologies to Dr. Brin.
PSB
DP,
ReplyDeleteYou can repeat yourself til kingdom come, it doesn't make you right. Logic is easily twisted, and if it is based on a false premise, it is worse than useless. Not only is there no evidence whatsoever that the god you insist must make all meaning exists, but not everyone on Earth subscribes to an existentialist philosophy. Your logic is not based in fact, it is nothing but subjective rambling, and unsubtle demand that people suborn the use of their brains to conform to your personal subjectivity.
PSB
Dr Brin,
ReplyDeleteIf I understood you correctly, in short you are saying that nature alone can not account for the things that humans can do with their minds? That nurture (environment, culture, etc.) was necessary?
If so, I've never come across anything Dawkins has said or written that could reasonably be construed to deny that, and I've heard and read a lot of Dawkins over the years.
In fairness, ChatGPT is not garbage or a con, however. It not only blew through the Turing Test (admittedly a vague definition), but Hofstadter's Law too.
ReplyDeleteDarrell: "you are saying that nature alone can not account for the things that humans can do with their minds? That nurture (environment, culture, etc.) was necessary?"
ReplyDeleteI am saying that nature and nuture... like cooperation and competition... often TAKE TURNS building a layer and then handing off to the other.
--
MCS there is an industry of hirelings who create jpegs and links like the one you are offering us. I used to look at many and poke slashed holes in them. I now recognize oligarch-paid fizz blather.
Bring me something that offers an alternative explanation for ocean acidification other than human generated CO2.
Till you do that, I ssert - with some credibility - that you are falling for an incantation cult whose core purpose is NOT to preserve carbon fuels, but to undermine science, itself.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@mcsandberg,
ReplyDeletehttps://ocean.si.edu/ocean-life/invertebrates/ocean-acidification
...
The ocean itself is not actually acidic in the sense of having a pH less than 7, and it won’t become acidic even with all the CO2 that is dissolving into the ocean. But the changes in the direction of increasing acidity are still dramatic.
So far, ocean pH has dropped from 8.2 to 8.1 since the industrial revolution, and is expected by fall another 0.3 to 0.4 pH units by the end of the century. A drop in pH of 0.1 might not seem like a lot, but the pH scale, like the Richter scale for measuring earthquakes, is logarithmic. For example, pH 4 is ten times more acidic than pH 5 and 100 times (10 times 10) more acidic than pH 6. If we continue to add carbon dioxide at current rates, seawater pH may drop another 120 percent by the end of this century, to 7.8 or 7.7, creating an ocean more acidic than any seen for the past 20 million years or more.
...
Larry, take a skim down comment lane at the WUWT blog for the linked posting.
ReplyDelete@Slim Moldie,
ReplyDeleteSo you mean mcsandburg was already well aware that ocean acidification meant a change in the direction of pH, not that the ocean would actually become an acid. And he still thought we'd buy that as an argument?
Ok, I'm smelling sealion.
@Slim Moldie again,
ReplyDeleteI tried scanning the comments, but the graphics make it hard to tell where the original post leaves off and the comments themselves begin.
A good percentage of the comments are from the original author being an asshole.
The point of the piece seems to be that the term "acidification" itself is a scare tactic because the ocean isn't going to turn into an acid bath. Even if that were true, that wouldn't mean the lowering of ocean pH isn't happening, or that it isn't having noticeable effects on fish and coral and such.
Even that last bit of mine is beside Dr Brin's point that mcs seems to think he's refuting. That point isn't that ocean acidification is a bad thing in and of itself (even though it is). The point is that ocean acidification is a barometer of how much CO2 is overwhelming the atmosphere. It's a canary in the coal mine (heh) demonstrating that global warming due to atmospheric CO2 is happening, and much quicker than anyone, even the alarmists, ever imagined. The quibbling over what the process is called or whether fish were happier in the Precambrian age is irrelevant. Even if ocean acidification was in and of itself a good thing, it would still be an alarm that something else is out of control.
So yeah, sealioning.
@McSandberg
ReplyDeleteAccording to the Australian Renewable Energy Regulation Agency:
"The capital cost of LSS projects in Australia decreased by 25% between 2015 and the end of 2020 (from AUD$1.87 to AUD$1.39 per watt)" (which equates to about US$1/watt)
That data is from 2-3 years ago. Your data is even older: Copper Mountain entered service over ten years, starting in...2010, when solar costs would have been much higher!
I suggest you stop serving bowls of moldy old cherries to folk who have access to an orchard.
Lena
ReplyDeleteAll comments that I could delete have been as per your request to "go away"
All
ReplyDeleteLike I said, I'm not a troll, I don't stay where I'm not wanted.
Sorry, MCS, but that last bit by you was the first time that *I* sniffed and found a bad smell from you.
ReplyDeleteSeriously? One guy snarked 'go away' and three others chimed in to say "don't." Yet, you moan about being exiled? You know better. We have thick skins here and I invited you to stay.
No, it seems very likely that you did not like our response to your cited links, which were (I assert) pretty pathetic stuff. You could concede the point - esp about ocean acidification... or hang tight and show us we're wrong... or shrug and return another day.
You chose option #4... which members of the MAGA cult ALWAYS choose. To sniff and run away. That saddens me.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMCS you have no basis for that insult. Ask yourself WHY is the comment community here different in almost every way? Not HUNDREDS of terse, snarky scroll past snarks that you get almost everywhere else. But multi-paragraph, well-parsed submissions that others reliably actually READ.
ReplyDeleteThere's no basis for your dismissal other than the fact that you offered a couple of standard link-catechisms that are both elderly and pretty darn lame. So? Do better!
What's fundamental is that the change in Ph in the planet's oceans is a hrrific trend that endangers all our children and all food chains and has absolutely ZERO effective responses from denialism.
Not one of the standard catechisms... like accusing 99% of scientists of 'credentialism'... is effective re ocean acidification. It is a fact, it has one cause and only one. (Which can now also be said about disappearing glaciers, a surge of '100-year' weather events and the hottest month in 125,000 years.)
This is CONTRARY Brin and we argue, please do not try the 'lemming uniformity' thing on us.
But I wish you well. Come back when you feel ready to argue based on facts.
Darrell,
ReplyDeleteThe consensus in the branches of science that study humans these days is that nature and nurture are in a recursive relationship. It's not Nature vs Nurture, but Nature via nurture. The nature of the human brain is that it is flexible enough to think a huge variety of thoughts. Culture is one of many factors that limits the thoughts any individual is likely to think, maybe be able to think. I can give you an example from a history class I had ages ago. We read a book about a nun in Renaissance Italy who was tried and imprisoned for life for the crime of sapphistry. The historian who found the trial records in Vatican City in a collection titled something like "The Miscellany of the Medici" noted that the court reporters who took notes on the trial normally had very legible handwriting, but in this particular case, their writing went to mush, like their hands were shaking as they wrote. In our time it isn't easy to imagine how people thought differently than we do today. To the people in that courtroom, who were used to writing descriptions of gruesome murders without batting an eye, the idea that a woman could desire a woman was beyond comprehension. To them, women desire men because men are so beautiful, strong, and superior in every way to women. Men only procreate with women to do their duty to God, but what they really desire is men - a sin, or course, but understandable because men are so much better than women. In their minds, women were not much above domesticated animals, desirable only for what they could do for men. That is a case where a culture constrained the ability of people to even think certain thoughts. Biology obviously had a different idea.
PSB
Shorter DP:
ReplyDelete"Let me repeat..."
Dr. Brin,
ReplyDeleteOn a more pleasant note, I came across a fairly recent book on testosterone (2017) and started it today. I haven't even made it half way through, but it has been quite fun. It pretty well shoots down most of our preconceptions about T and gender roles, and with a little bit of dry humor (the author is Australian, but I have no idea if Aussie humor is as dry as English humor is reputed to be). The book is called "Testosterone Rex: Myths of Sex, Science, and Society" by Cordelia Fine. I'm sure I'll have more to say when I'm done with it, but it's looking good so far. The most important thing is that the author is pointing out that reality is far more complicated than our oversimplified assertions about it.
https://www.amazon.com/Testosterone-Rex-Cordelia-Fine-audiobook/dp/B01N2Y2T24/ref=sr_1_2?crid=P3TITZDFAP54&keywords=testosterone+rex&qid=1692073827&sprefix=testosterone+rex%2Caps%2C194&sr=8-2
BTW: How has the Anne Leckie been going?
PSB
4th indictment: I'm afraid this'll just ensure a flood of Timothy McVeighs, till we get the Deutsche Bank records. Hurrah for undercover FBI guys out there.
ReplyDeleteH Dr Brin
ReplyDeletemcsandberg - is a lying Climate change denier - its your site but I would vote to ban him
We get quite enough of that crap everywhere else
Duncan, I prefer to give folks benefit of the doubt. indeed, I want a reputation as a place where folks can argue... but with expectation of demands for evidence that's more than a standard hurl-link.
ReplyDeleteEspecially, I like to refine challenges down to distillations that corner the unreasonable. Call them a Denialist Cult and it's a matter of hurled insults. They ARE a cult waging war vs every fact profession. But demanding focus on a single aspect is what works best.
Ocean acidification is one of the best. It is proven. Huge. A danger to all our children. has but one possible cause. And ignoring it is criminal/
Duncan,
ReplyDeleteI'm not so sure they were lying in any intentional sense. They struck me as a typical, active member of the cult.
1. When renewables are debated, use old facts about costs.
2. When social commitment is mentioned, explain people won't tax themselves ever while rejecting examples where they do.
3. If you get pinned in a corner, misinterpret a term.
etc.
The argument they should have raised involves nuke plants. If we were truly serious, we'd be building them too in order to provide for base load.
That argument doesn't get mentioned (very often) by the cult because their actual objective is fighting the fight.
Dr Brin:
ReplyDeleteNot one of the standard catechisms... like accusing 99% of scientists of 'credentialism'... is effective re ocean acidification. It is a fact, it has one cause and only one.
They don't even deny it is happening. Just the fact that the term is suspect--that the ocean isn't actually becoming an acid--supposedly means the whole concept and its implications are discredited. Atmospheric CO2 isn't increasing, because the ocean pH is still above 7.
Apparently, if someone in Phoenix were to say, "Geez, the mercury hit 119 again today," they would counter with "Thermometers don't actually still use mercury, do they?" As if that were the issue.
Dr Brin:
ReplyDeleteI prefer to give folks benefit of the doubt. indeed, I want a reputation as a place where folks can argue... but with expectation of demands for evidence that's more than a standard hurl-link.
I agree. Banning for content gives the impression that we know he's got a point but we don't want to hear it. It's everything the right-wing accuses us of that they do themselves.
Besides, if they really are trolls or sealions or whatever, they tend to self-deport after we honestly try to engage with counterarguments.
Alfred Differ, paraphrasing :
ReplyDelete...
2. When social commitment is mentioned, explain people won't tax themselves ever while rejecting examples where they do.
There's an element of reality to that point. It may well be the case that we can't mitigate climate change because the general population won't make the effort.
Where I differed with our guest on that point was that if true, that would in itself be a harmful thing for human life. He was presenting it as a win for the deniers--as if lack of meaningful mitigation efforts proved that "nothing different was happening."
But "Fish were happier in the Precambrian era"??? Come ON!
PSB,
ReplyDeleteThanks, I agree. My point is that Dawkins and 'nearly everyone,' which I took to mean academics of similar mind as Dawkins, know that, and that claims to the contrary are unwarranted. In other words, DP doesn't know what he is talking about. Dawkins, and those of similar mind, is the boogieman of certain groups that deny science in favor of spiritual navel gazing and routinely commit the naturalistic fallacy. Sometimes I give in to the urge to say something when I come across such people spreading misinformation.
Sorry if I just can't get past this...
ReplyDeleteDP:
"I can't prove it to you, but I know for a fact that I exist."
How is this statement falsifiable?
How is "A = A" falsifiable? If something is so self-evident that one can't even conceive of a counterexample, that's an argument against?
No different than: "I can't prove it to you, but I know for a fact that God exists."
No, they are two entirely different things.
If you were saying something like, "I can't prove it to you, but God has spoken to me," or "I can't prove it to you, but the God-shaped hole in my soul proves to me that God exists.", then we'd be talking about similar assertions. But in everything you've said so far about the existence of God, you've indicated that there is no evidence, but you've made a personal choice to believe. I'm not here to condemn that choice--just to point out that it is different from my own certainty that I exist.
I don't "choose" to believe I exist any more than I chose to grow from embryo to fetus to baby. My own awareness demonstrates that an "I" is indeed aware of itself. The part I can't prove to you is that I'm real, but I do try to demonstrate the means by which you know that you yourself exist--that in general, person-A is aware of person-A's existence. There may not be evidence that is available to convince person-B of person-A's existence, but person-A himself has the evidence of his own consciousness and self-awareness.
That is fundamentally different from choosing to believe in God's existence despite a lack of evidence. And again, while some believers claim to have experienced evidence in their own minds, you have not yet made such a claim.
I know we're past onward, but this news item that apparently just dropped seems apropos the current blog post:
ReplyDeleteCould tax cuts for private jets help Michigan’s aviation businesses?
Policymakers are always under pressure to "create jobs," and this inevitably means kissing up to business interests, including apparently enabling executives to fly private instead of first class (where of course they belong). Certainly the loudest astroturf on the airwaves in the Michigan market is coming from Enbridge, constantly lobbying the legislature (and astroturfing the population) about how shutting down "line 5" (the rusty old pipeline running under the strait of Mackinac) will be a jobs killer, and of course added to all the energy industry PR blitz about how opportunity (in general) is powered by energy, again in general, but always quick to remind us of gas having a necessary niche as a "transition fuel."
I'm old enough to remember when NBC Nightly News was almost singlehandedly sponsored by Exxon. I was in high school by the time I found out Exxon was an oil company. I think it might be due to (I think) some of the aftereffects of the breakup of Standard Oil years ago, but at any rate back then there were no Exxon gas stations in Michigan, in the Detroit area anyway. I honestly thought from age about 8 to age about 14 that Exxon was the name of an organization that was into investing in alternative energy. My point is that energy industry PR has been preaching the "can't shift energy sources instantaneously" line for at least a half century. That even agreeing to address global warming is an apparently impossible coordination problem as late in the game as 2023 proves to me that by "instantaneously" the spin doctors mean "ever."
Ian Danskin states it more poignantly, starting at time index 2:06:
The Alt-Right Playbook: The Slow Breakup
Competition and cooperation.
ReplyDeleteWhen I worked at GM in the 1980s, I was an ok chess player. The engineers convinced the chess master of the engineering dept. to play a game against me, and all gathered around at lunch. He quickly shredded and defeated me (which was a relief to the clock watching bosses). We shook hands and remained colleagues.
I asked him how he got so good at chess. He answered that he never played a lesser opponent, always seeking ones he really couldn't hope to beat, except when he had an ulterior motive. I then continued schooling him in dBASE III as he'd asked me to.
So I learned the Early Queen Sacrifice gambit and he could do his own taxes. This simple life lesson seems to rarely happen in cults. Bigly sad.
Dr. Brin - "4th indictment"
ReplyDeleteThis is the most interesting indictment of the four.
Trump et al are being charged under RICO which gives prosecutors a wide range of powers.
Trump will be testifying live on TV - let's see how well he holds up under the pressure of hostile cross examination.
We should start a pool to see which one of his co-conspirators turns on him first.
Trump could not conceivably pardon himself as president since this is a state charge.
Politicians have run from jail before (socialist Eugene Debs and Boston mayor Curly, e.g.) - Trump could be giving his nomination acceptance speech from the Georgia State Prison.
At his age and with his poor health, any prison sentence is for life.
Insomuch as Ocean Acidification is to elevated atmospheric CO2 levels as Global Boiling is to Climate Change, it's neither 'antiscience' nor 'sea-lioning' to point out that such exaggerated nomenclature is the worst type of propaganda.
ReplyDeleteHyperbole is often the hallmark of cognitive dissonance, being an attempt to alleviate 'the mental discomfort that results from holding two conflicting beliefs, values, or attitudes'.
Other more extreme forms of hyperbole also serve as an attempt to alleviate cognitive dissonance, as in the case of our middle class host's predilection for Marxist dogma, up to & including his desire to precipitate a limited 'class war' between the Oligarchy upper classes & the Proletarian lower classes.
Or, even more so, as in the case the simultaneous endorsement of the amoral Atheist mindset and the completely contradictory belief in an divinely-inspired & absolute moral system.
US politics has become an absolute shitshow, at both the state & federal levels, specifically because of this type of cognitive dissonance, providing excessive proof that DENIAL is much more than a river in Egypt.
Stick around, MCS, as reason & logic are in short supply around here.
Best
_____________
I just got back from California. The cognitive dissonance is off-the-scale there as most crimes have been **decriminalized** and our best & brightest are simply unable to explain the increasing incidences of across-the-board lawlessness, their solution to lawlessness being less & less law enforcement.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe most significant charge against the former president — under the Georgia Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act — carries a sentence of up to 20 years in prison.
ReplyDeleteBecause the case is so complicated and includes 19 defendants, it's very likely that it will be the last case among the four to go to trial.
And if Trump is convicted, a judge can take his entire judicial history into account during sentencing, Ronald Carlson, a professor at the University of Georgia School of Law, said.
Moreover, Georgia is one of the few states where the governor doesn't have any pardon power. Trump would have to apply for a pardon to an independent board. And he wouldn't be allowed to do that until he's already served five years in prison, Carlson said.
"The governor can't pardon here. It's the Board of Pardons and Paroles that has to grant that," Carlson said. "And here's the kicker: President Trump could only apply for a pardon if he were to be convicted only after he served five years in a Georgia penitentiary."
Pass the popcorn.
Only remaining hurdle for the Dems is Biden's age.
ReplyDeleteBest scenario: Kamala gets a chance to go back the senate by being offered Feinstein's seat.
Biden runs and picks Mark Kelly (astronaut hero with a near martyred super popular wife Gabby Gifford) as his running mate - and president in waiting.
Just run this as a campaign ad:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FhlFKwE45Y
Dem sweep in 2024.
Larry,
ReplyDeleteIt may well be the case that we can't mitigate climate change because the general population won't make the effort.
They will eventually… and that's not a faith statement. 8)
You might not buy the food you need a year in advance and store it, but you do eventually buy a years worth of food to feed yourself for the year. Climate change will eventually be dealt with that way if people chose not to face it now.
The only question in my mind is "At what cost?"
1. Some argue that fixing things after they get 'out of hand' will be very expensive. Too expensive. Waiting will lead to crushing economic impacts.
2. Some point out that we are getting richer in wealth, income, and knowledge and it is those resources that would be used to mitigate future impacts. This is essentially a Net Present Value argument. *
I can see a point for #2, but with reasonable conservation efforts (don't use what you really don't need) I'd support #1 for some things. In the former Third World, incomes have increased dramatically which puts mitigation techniques in reach for some of them.
My bet is on #2, but we can keep some of the costs down by dealing (cheaply) with some of the issues now. I can probably afford to dump by internal combustion engine with my next car purchase, so I'm going to rig my house NOW for an EV that I don't own yet. Not everyone can do that, but in a small way I can do some things that are useful now that go beyond conservation.
* Cult members don't use the NPV argument much either. It comes too close to the truth that the world is becoming a better place through a coalition of progressives and liberals.
DP,
ReplyDeleteWe have plenty of capable people to fill Feinstein's seat. I'd rather see Harris on the ticket.
The ongoing philosophy / existence discussion got me thinking about Philip Jose Farmer’s Riverworld series. This is from the introduction he wrote to the chapter on religion and myths in the 1977 “Encyclopedia of Science Fiction.”
ReplyDelete“…Even when I was an atheist, I was powerfully attracted by the Roman Catholic faith. But I still believed that religion was only Homo sapiens' conscious expression of the instinctive drive for survival in the unconscious cells in humankind's bodies.
The brain, knowing that a person can't live for ever in this world, rationalizes a future, or other-dimensional, world in which immortality is possible. In other words, religion is the earliest form of science fiction.
Nevertheless, I had, and I have, a contradictory belief that the possibility of immortality is not a fiction.
I've extrapolated on many religious themes in my writings. The ultimate is the premise, now being developed in my Riverworld series, that immortality won’t be given us by supernatural means. We'll have to make it ourselves and do so by physical means, by science. (‘We’ includes all sentient beings in the universe.) This is part of the Creator's plan, a sort of do-it-yourself book which we are in the process of writing for ourselves. It (the sexless Creator) has given us intelligence and self-consciousness so that we may bring about our own resurrection. We will then provide immortality, which will give us time for developing our psychic evolution towards the ideal.
It may seem idiotic or naive to express belief in the attainment of immortality of everybody who's existed or will exist. But without immortality, there is no meaning in life.
For me, only those stories concerned with this one vital issue are serious. All others, no matter how moving or profound, are mere entertainments. They do not deal with that which is our gravest concern. Without a belief in eternal life for us, the terrestrial existence is to be gotten through with as little pain and as much pleasure as possible.
If this conclusion is the triumph of irrationality over logic, so be it. After all irrationality is the monopoly of sentients.”
mcsandburg:
ReplyDeleteThe panic peddling has gotten completely unacceptable:
A recent Lancet study of 10,000 young people, ages 16–25, found that 59% were extremely worried about climate change, and 84% were at least moderately worried. The respondents suffered from sadness, anxiety and anger and felt powerless, helpless and guilty.
So they perceive the world accurately, and you see that as a problem? They feel powerless because of people like you. And the effects of climate change in their own lifetimes--beyond that of someone old enough to have posted to message boards in 1986--may be catastrophic.
I feel guilty that I will probably safely die before climate change makes life unbearable. I'm concerned for my daughter, though.
Alfred Differ:
ReplyDelete"It may well be the case that we can't mitigate climate change because the general population won't make the effort."
They will eventually… and that's not a faith statement. 8)
Again, my point was that even if I agreed that human apathy and short-term thinking will doom us not to mitigate climate change, the result is a bad thing, not just for "climate activists", but for humanity as a whole. The attitude I was arguing against was that which I paraphrase as "No one is willing to do the work of combating climate change, so therefore climate change isn't a problem. We [deniers] win!"
Alfred: You are right about nuclear power. And often conservatives are astonished when I swiftly concede the point. But then, techno liberals like Stewart Brand have been pushing careful nuke revival for two decades.And every year at NIAC we have nuclear projects we give seed grants to. You see no such variations on the right, alas. It is a cult.
ReplyDelete--
The new indictments fill me with joy not for Trump being righteously zinged again, but for Powell, Eastman, Clarke and Meadows. I am ecstatic over that, at last. And FOX is likely to help, at least for Powell. Alas, we won't get results till 20205 at the earliest.
Alas, the downside is that the McVeighs are simmering near boil.
(God help me) locumranch:
ReplyDeleteInsomuch as Ocean Acidification is to elevated atmospheric CO2 levels as Global Boiling is to Climate Change, it's neither 'antiscience' nor 'sea-lioning' to point out that such exaggerated nomenclature is the worst type of propaganda.
Is it some kind of right-wing talking point that I missed to play up the idea that climate activists use the term "acidification" as a scare tactic? You can't deny that the thing itself is happening or why it is happening, so you have to go with "It's not as scary as they make it sound"?
I'll...repeat...this...slower...so...you...can...understand.
Ocean pH is falling. The term used to describe that is irrelevant. Whether the lowering of ocean pH in and of itself is harmful or beneficial is irrelevant. The fact that it is happening is proof of the speed at which atmospheric CO2 is increasing. Atmospheric CO2 increases is what causes climate change. Ocean acidification is an indicator of how much of that is going on.
It is anti-science to deny what is plainly happening. It is sealioning to keep posting outdated and debunked links and going, "How about this?" over and over again.
Dr Brin:
ReplyDeleteAlas, the downside is that the McVeighs are simmering near boil.
We can't live out our lives placating the McVeighs of the world in the vain hope that they'll not boil over as long as we give into their whims. At some point, we have to say "Bring it on!" and be prepared to respond to the terrorists.
MCS you’ll soon realize that the way we put up with locumranch disproves your panicky slur against us. We are VERY tolerant here. What we are hoping is that you will take care re strawmanning, attributing to any of us false ‘beliefs’ that we never expressed, never had and find loathesome.
ReplyDeleteYou have already danced close to that dismal behavior, in your desperate need to discredit us.
Poor locum is certifiably insane, of course. Nothing that he ever says – (though expressed with the polysyllabic skill of a GPT bot) – is ever true and he always flees from ever, ever stepping up to back things up with anything but ravings. (See wager demand, below)
In this case: ‘acidification’ is exactly and precisely the correct scientific term. It is proceeding rapidly. It is killing whole ecosystems. It has just one known cause. And those trying lame excuses to deny it are directly committing crimes against ALL generations. They also prove themselves to be utter jabberer cultists.
And the attempt to rave against a TERM as a reason to ignore a terrible threat to the nation and the future is utterly despicable.
Again, I propose wither of you have a reputable atty verify you escrowed $10k stakes. We'll put evidence to a nonpartisan panel of retired Sr military officers. (Most former lifelong Republicans.)
Let’s poll serving and retired US Naval officers about Russian buildups for an ice-freeArctic. And the flooding of both Norfolk Naval Base and all of Florida. Nothing could prove insanity more deeply than that the deepest-red US states are the ones that will be most devastates by malaria, dengue, kudzu, heat waves and the drowning.
NOW A CONCESSION. I agree and find it deeply saddening that polls show despair among young people. And this is only 77% the fault of the mad, denialist right. The dismally dumb-ass FAR left is reaponsible for much of it. I know some and they cannot stand the pure fact that we are a better nation than in 1968 and hence our problems call for more calm negotiation and less sanctimonious fury.
Only dig it:
Yes, the FAR left CONTAINS fact-allergic, troglodyte-screeching dogmatists who wage war on science and hate the American tradition of steady, pragmatic reform, and who would impose their prescribed morality on you.
But today’s mad ENTIRE right CONSISTS of fact-allergic, troglodyte-screeching dogmatists who wage war on science and hate the American tradition of steady, pragmatic reform, and who would impose their prescribed morality on you.
There is all the world’s difference between FAR and ENTIRE. As there is between CONTAINS and CONSISTS.
Kamala’s staying where she is. If Biden has a stroke or gets too tired, she’d been training all this time and (while not my favorite) is solid. The differences between Dem & GOP presidents make a mountain high list (like dems are ALWAYS more fiscally responsible). But the pertinent two in this case is that Dems ALWAYS appoint qualified VPs and GOPpers NEVER do… well, once. Reagan chose a guy who was qualified, on paper… and became the worst president of the 20th Century.
ReplyDeleteDifference #2. Dem Presidents surround themselves with 10,000 qualified appointees. Kamala would chair actual meetings of skilled folks. GOP presidents appoint the kind of Shills who spent an entire afternoon flattering Trump before cameras. If you do not remember that… OMG.
But Feinstein should resign and Newsom should appoint Adam Schiff. One of the few alpha level polemical fighters they have, since the far left savaged Al Franken (damn them.) Alas, Newson doesn’t dare appoint anyone but a minority woman. The good news is that there are many capable ones.
---
Slim Moldie thanks for that reminder of Denial of Death, which was the rive where Egyptian civilization began.
DP I actually find it disturbing there’s no way in GA for an innocent person to get relief when proof of innocence is found.
---
MCS Wait: “panic peddling” from a cult that shrieks over toilet flushes? Or yammers that Hunter Biden’s entire (sketchy) life compares to ANY randomly chosen WEEK of any Trump male? (Please join me in demanding a cancellation of all Non Disclosure Agreements. If Dems are hiding calumnies, expose them! Alas, you know who uses NDAs far more.)
Your cult has blocked every effort to do things about what is now overwhelmingly proved to be an existential danger. Your excuse was that the benefits weren’t worth the economy-destroying costs. Only dig this: NOT ONE of the MAGA rave sites like Fox ever tabulated those supposed ‘costs.’ They didn’t because they knew there was nothing there.
---
Then there’s morality. Red-States (except Utah) score higher in average levels of EVERY turpitude than averages for blue-run states. That includes child predation.
LOOK UP DENNIS 'FRIEND TO BOYS' HASTERT AND BE VERY PROUD.
http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2019/07/debate-special-shall-we-let-them-divide.html
Oh one more thing. If L were an honest person, he’d suggest ALTERNATIVES to ‘acidification’ that he'd accept as neutrally describing the same horrific threat to the world. Thus, allowing him to admit he should care.
ReplyDeleteOoooh! I got one!
DEBASING the oceans!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTaking actions to mitigate climate change does not mean spending money for no return. It can, and has, opened new markets, created jobs, created value. Arguing that it will cost too much is simply wrong.
ReplyDeleteJesus, he's talking toilets now.
ReplyDeleteAnswer#1 - as if I were talking to a Barry Goldwater conservative: "If you have a regulatory problem, let's negotiate. Regulation SHOULD err on the side of less. We must save water and electricity and regs doing such things have generally helped to stanch many profligate wastes. But we can deal with individual complaints.
"Especially since the record of Democrats at DE-regulation is provably vastly better than Republicans... like eliminating the ICC and BAB and AT&T... and if you don't know what those were or that Dems did all that... then so sorry about the toilets!"
But clearly we are NOT talking to a Goldwater conservative. I mess them, they negotiated. Instead we are dealing with a MAGA apologist who desperately squirms for "WHATABOUT!!!???" distractions from the GOP's perfect record as a criminal gang.
An bet me now whether I can prove that 'negotiation' in US politics was utterly destroyed almost entirely by the gone-mad GOP. Before you offer wager stakes, look up Dennis Hastert.
...
Sorry that's the ICC and CAB etc... Civil Aeronautics Board the price-fixed airlines and was hated by libertarians while GOPpers never did a thing about it. Again, only dems are fiscally responsible. Only dems effectively DE-regulate, What more examples? Like the damned drug war?
ReplyDeleteDr Brin:
ReplyDeleteBut Feinstein should resign and Newsom should appoint Adam Schiff.
The problem is that whether Feinstein takes leave or resigns, the Republicans will refuse to seat her replacement on the judiciary committee. The only way for us to hold onto the one-seat majority on that committee, and therefore have a chance of seating any Biden judges, is for Feinstein to show up in body.
DP I actually find it disturbing there’s no way in GA for an innocent person to get relief when proof of innocence is found.
This is cynical of me, but I suspect that if you are white, there is a way.
Dr Brin:
ReplyDeleteInstead we are dealing with a MAGA apologist who desperately squirms for "WHATABOUT!!!???"
Maybe, but the vibe I get is a single-issue fossil fuel apologist. Until he chimes in about abortion or insurrection or white supremacy.
Funny, his whole interaction with us began with an obvious misunderstanding of your position. He thought that your idea to get the wealthy off of private planes and onto commercial flights was about carbon footprints. All else followed from that. Whereas your point was specifically about something else--that airlines couldn't treat passengers like cattle if some of those passengers were influential and powerful.
No single news item PROVES global warming absolutely, in the face of relentless jpegs and URL-linked ravings by 3rd-rate hirelings of oligarchy... well, except for perfectly-proved ocean acidification killing the seas... and glacier retreat everywhere... and the hottest month in 125,000 years... and broken records for years... and US naval officers' long lists of prrofs that deep worries them... and...
ReplyDeleteBut nothing works on the cult. Except one thing terrifies them... accountability by focusing on particular details, one at a time, with cash $$ at stake. And hence, shall we bet over the coming hurricane season?
"Record Gulf of Mexico water temperatures raise concerns as peak hurricane season nears"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2023/08/15/record-warm-gulf-louisiana-texas/
To be clear, I have no crystal ball (that works). And hence, despite best estimates by the smartest folks* a super hot Carribbean might NOT spawn record hurricanes! So, any takers? An opportunity to score big - strictly on chance - might lure MAGA money to wager?
___
* While dissing climate scientists, hypocrites USE the reports issued by meteorologists, based on the same equations, data and models, to plan their vacations and businesses. Models that have gone from crappy 3 hour 'weather reports' to sublime 10 DAY forecasts YOU rely upon when planning trips. Now find me the top meteorologists (except yammerers on Fox stations) who won't verify fears over climate change.
Dr Brin:
ReplyDeleteModels that have gone from crappy 3 hour 'weather reports' to sublime 10 DAY forecasts YOU rely upon when planning trips.
I will never forget the lead-up to Hurricane Sandy, even though I live nowhere near the affected area. Over a week in advance, the forecasters knew that two separate storms which hadn't even formed yet would merge together in an unlikely manner and magnify each other into something unprecedented. It is very unusual for forecasters to predict unlikely events that far in advance--they usually refrain from going out on limbs like that. But everything came together exactly as planned.
What they need to do next is accurately forecast when a storm that has begun will end. Because lately they've kinda sucked at that. :)
Now find me the top meteorologists (except yammerers on Fox stations) who won't verify fears over climate change.
My daughter got into weather at a young age, so maybe ten or so years ago, we went to see our weatherman, Tom Skilling, speak to a crowd. It was springtime, and the weather over the Great Lakes was pretty cool for the time of year, so someone in the crowd asked where was this global warming? Tom's answer, which he showed on a map, was "Everywhere except here". Sure enough, almost the entire globe was painted in reds and oranges for "above normal". The one spot of blue was a bubble extending from the north pole through Hudson Bay and down to the Great Lakes.
Ooooh! I got one!
ReplyDeleteDEBASING the oceans!
I tend to use 'the souring seas'. Any agronomist will get it.
(Most agronomists *do* get it, by the way: they keep weather records, too.)
Models that have gone from crappy 3 hour 'weather reports' to sublime 10 DAY forecasts
And, of course, the people presenting those models are now getting death threats.
I second "debasing" the oceans.
ReplyDeleteTony,
ReplyDeleteThese days gobs of people are getting death threats. I'm so glad I'm not a teacher anymore. And who would have thought that being a librarian could be such a hazardous career? It's not just the oceans that are being debased, it's our whole society.
PSB
Larry,
ReplyDelete"... the vibe I get is a single-issue fossil fuel apologist. Until he chimes in about abortion or insurrection or white supremacy."
- Could be, but it could also just be that he only had a collection of links for that subject, and was waiting for a chance to "pwn the libs" as they say. I think his very first sentence was all we needed to see his agenda. While I agree with Duncan's sentiment, though, if the moderator bans pests like him, then the community can be easily painted out to be "woke" - and I suspect the guy's whining to his buddies about how rude and woke we all were for not falling for his arguments. People whose standards of evidence amount to Who's side are you on? tend to flock, and fall for the same lies, but don't have the cognitive potential to get how other people can think differently from themselves.
PSB
Dr. Brin,
ReplyDeleteI'm not finished with the testosterone book yet, but I just passed the point where the author cited hoards of studies that debunk the idea that risk-taking behavior has anything to do with sex at all. Between this book and what I know from other sources, it seems that male humans really aren't a monolithic class of highly-motivated achievers at all. Numerous studies show that in various contexts, women are just as aggressive risk-takers as men, and sometimes more so. And given assigned gender roles and double standards, the cost/benefit differences explain sex differences far more effectively than either genetics or endocrinology. She doesn't mention Simpson's Paradox, but that's what I suspect is going on in most cases.
PSB
@PSB Yes, I suppose it could be said that society is souring...
ReplyDeleteThe Georgia indictment took longer to get through. It is a bit more extensive and complicated. One thing that strikes me about the Jack Smith and Georgia indictments is that a general outline of most of the events in them were already public knowledge, via reporting. Of course the indictments give specific details and more importantly, sources. And no doubt the prosecutors have much more information, much more evidence, than what is briefly summarized in the indictments.
ReplyDeleteAnother thing that struck me is that Trump and his conspirators almost got away with it. Just a few individuals that finally were pushed to a line they wouldn't step over prevented the scheme from success. VP Mike Pence, the big one. But a few others too. Acting US AG Jeffrey Rosen and acting US Deputy AG Richard Donoghue. If not for them the scheme may have worked after a fashion and at best things would have quickly gotten much more exciting than the January 6th insurrection and at worst Trump could have remained POTUS.
It also seems likely to me that Jack Smith intentionally has not sought indictments (yet) pertaining to the attempt to steal the election in order to leave the path clear for Fani Willis.
PSB, as the Barbie Movie shows, we are in an era of compensatory ideology-purging, when certain topics have an official, party line position that is not to be questioned. Like all party-lines, this one punishes dissent or even attempts to be helpfully argumentative over matters of fact or tactics. I have been personally savaged by this dogma-puritanism, far harsher than I have been from the gone-mad right, against whom I actively fight.
ReplyDeleteI am able to shrug it (mostly) off. For one reason. Because for all its excesses, injustices and dogmatic bullying, the party-line of which I speak is at least aimed in the correct direction, toward empowerment of a maximum diversity of perspectives and voices and an end to prejudicial waste of talent. Indeed, their worst sin is refusal of tactical critique... adjustment of tactics that might make the cause more effective over strategic scales. And desperation to avoid acknowledging the palpable existence of real progress.
The other reason I am blithe is that this is self-limiting. It must be. Generalized male-bashing is dumb and self-harming and unjust, though it is contextually understandable - as were earlier (much better) anthems like the one by Helen Reddy (I am a big fan of 80s-90s feminist anthems!) Still, as more and more women and non-orthos of all kinds are empowered according to their abilities, WILL a time come when sanctimony-exaggeration is viewed as... an unfair over-reach? If the movement is successful, won't that day come?
In Xena's name I hope so, though I know some activists who view that likelihood with dread.
What I do know is that papers and books like the ones you are citing are so blatantly and hilariously wrong that one can only shake one's head over the indulgence and the dogmatis authors' utter ignoring of everything we know about history and anthropology.
Dr Brin:
ReplyDeleteStill, as more and more women and non-orthos of all kinds are empowered according to their abilities, WILL a time come when sanctimony-exaggeration is viewed as... an unfair over-reach? If the movement is successful, won't that day come?
If not, then the only alternative is Monty Python's "Dennis Moore" sketch.
"We said 'He steals from the poor, and gives to the rich.'"
"Hmmm. This redistribution of wealth is trickier than I had imagined."
everything we know about history and anthropology
ReplyDeleteExcept a lot of what we 'know' about both those subjects (and many more) turns out not to be the case, at least not as we were taught it. More evidence comes to light, biases get revealed, and so on.
For example, cheap DNA testing is revealing that quite a few warrior graves were not, as first reported, males but females. Even bodies identified by archaeologists as male by pelvic girdles have turned out to be misidentified. The whole men-are-warriors thing turns out to be less historically-based than I learned in school.
Professional historians know that people lie, or misremember, or misinterpret, and take that into account. So when more data surfaces, or we learn more about the context, it is only natural that 'history' changes. Even the labels we use for events are biased to a particular viewpoint. Consider the revolutionary war as covered in American, British, and Canadian history textbooks for schools. (The ABCs of history?) American texts present it as a grand struggle for freedom*. British texts treat it as a minor part of the wars with France. Canadian texts make particular note of the atrocities committed by the revolutionaries against loyalist colonists**, the desire of the colonial rebels to discard treaties, and the role of slavery. Was it a revolution, part of a geopolitical struggle between empires, or a rebellion that succeeded?
(Yes, school textbooks aren't rigorous scholarly work. But they are a large chunk of what "everybody knows".)
*And hey, if you watch the PragerU videos authorized for Florida schools you'll learn that Fredrick Douglass was OK with slavery because it opened the way for the creation of the United States, which was more important!
**Not to mention the exploitation of poor farmers by colonial authorities, against which the Crown was seen as defending the farmers against the merchants.
If not, then the only alternative is Monty Python's "Dennis Moore" sketch.
ReplyDeleteI prefer the Wayne & Shuster take, where Robin hands a sack of money to a poor peasant family. The peasant cries "I'm rich!", and is promptly relieved of his wealth by Robin Hood…
Dr. Brin,
ReplyDeleteI think you are making a huge assumption here. The author of this one is in no way a dogmatist, politically correct, "woke" or any other term that we use in this country to describe those lefties who actually do fit the stereotype the righties claim is true of all of them. To begin with, the author isn't American, and very little of this comes from her own lab. I haven't finished with this one yet, but so far there is nothing in it that smells of PC. It's a synthesis of genuine research, from recent science all over the world.
Science proceeds in fits and starts, and it has become a mechanism for adjusting culture, but also in fits and starts. Researchers of the past were influenced by their cultures, no matter how objective they insisted they were, and researchers today are the same. The old model that most people today think is the "truth" of human nature where sexual dimorphism is concerned was legitimated by Gregory Bateson's drosophila experiments of 1948. His culture told him that the differences between males and females in terms of reproductive strategies are natural and supported by Darwinian theory, so naturally that is exactly what he found. However, the work of feminist scholars and just women in the sciences generally has been moving the needle. A team went back to Bateson's data and found something really interesting. He did 6 trials, and in the first 4, there was no difference between male and female reproductive success. Trials 5 and 6 showed a slight difference in favor of the males. So naturally when he reported his results, he made no mention whatsoever of Trials 1-4. He fudged it to get the results he expected, and exaggerated his conclusion. In those days, not too many people would have bat an eye. Today, the culture has been influenced enough by the science to muddle the assumptions of researchers enough that some, at least, will be able to see things that past researchers missed (or deliberately ignored).
No offense intended, but I highly recommend you read it for yourself, and keep in mind that you, like me and everyone else on this planet, are a product of your time and place, which informs the assumptions that feed into your beliefs and assessments.
PSB
Searing hatred of the Y chromosome exists, but it's a fraught porcupine. Transistors are much simpler/safer :)
ReplyDeletescidata:
ReplyDeleteTransistors are much simpler/safer
You mean because of searing hatred toward transbrothers?
@Larry Hart
ReplyDeleteI mean that I avoid raging debate. Ever since my stroke, I simply cannot defend myself in a real-time conversation. My entire vocal anatomy freezes up. I use Albert Schweitzer's line: "My life is my argument."
I really don't like the stuttering, confused version of myself - it brings back bad memories of almost dying. When I'm confronted with confrontation, I'd rather just take my 39 lashes.
@scidata,
ReplyDeleteSorry, I didn't mean to dredge up old traumas. I was just making a stupid pun.
@Larry Hart
ReplyDeleteSaying sorry for doing nothing wrong - you sound Canadian. Speaking of which, I just saw a weather pic showing more smoke headed down to Chicagoland. Sorry :)
"Except a lot of what we 'know' about both those subjects (and many more) turns out not to be the case, at least not as we were taught it."
ReplyDeleteUm sorry. That's mostly as we are NOW TOLD that it was taught.
There was a fair amount of genuine sexism, multiplied prodigiously by cherrypicked exaggerations.
I've read Margartet Meade and Sarah Hrdy and many others who never fit the mold of male-chauvinist pushers of patriarchal assumptions.
I know of no one credible who ever claimed that young women never engaged in hunting, or that they ceased doing so at all, after marriage. Or that aristocratic women never carried weapons. Certainly in my TRIBES game they are welcome to do so, though not while pregnant and nursing? Why not then? Because it takes a special kind of mania to insist a person passing through that life phase would run across the savannah rather than dig roots. Moreover, this jibes with what's been ACTUALLY seen in HG societies.
It's not that compensatory revisionism is not called for! Of course it is. You know I am a bitter opponent of the brutal, harem-keeping lords who came to dominate after the arrival of agriculture. One of the keenest insights I've seen from a feminist anthropologist... since the work of my much admired friend Sarah Hrdy... is the observation that agriculture vastly enhanced the priority of strength - male muscles in the fields - over the foraging and gardens that rewarded female keen observation and patient care.
WHEAT made males the top calorie providers. Though -apparently - women brewed the essential beer.
But to escape the hell of feudalism calls for FORWARD movement, not absurdities about the past.
Take those buxom Venus figurines. OBVIOUSLY they prove there was a mother goddess religion all across the neolithic, till agriculture-based partriarchal Zeus-Abrahamic bullies quashed her.
Yeah. Sure. That's the only possible explanation. Funny how there are visual representations of females with exaggerated traits in all societies, and thyey are generally used for... um... goddess worship. RIght. Calling Hugh Hefner, High Priest of Momma Gaia.
Dr. Brin,
ReplyDeleteYou're making a whole lot of assumptions here. I'm no fan of Marijah Gimbutas or her followers, and I have seen none of that in this book as of yet. I have also read Mead and Hrdy, and the upper-arm strength advantage in handling a plow, versus a horticulturalist's digging stick, is really basic stuff I learned about in Anth 101 more than 30 years ago. I also had the experience of pissing off some well-established people in Aegean archaeology when I called into question the established myth that the Minoans were some glorious, peaceful matriarchy. Ironically, one of those people turned around and wrote book that did exactly what I had done, except that he focused more on the fact that Sir Arthur Evans was a closeted homosexual who had fantasies about female domination, or some such. Another one of them wrote articles in which he pointed out the athleticism of the male figures in Minoan frescoes and how they always had daggers at their waists.
The book I am talking about is none of that. If it was, I would have stopped listening to it before the end of the first chapter.
On the subject of Hugh Heffner, I say a presentation given by Meg Conkey many years ago in which she pretty well trashed the Gimbutas/Gaia cult. One of the images she showed was a French cartoon in which a young caveman is drawing Willendorf-like pictures on his cave walls, while an older man approaches and says, "Ah, nephew, still a bachelor, I see."
PSB
Perhaps you are put off by the title, Testosterone Rex. It's not what it sounds like. The author didn't coin the phrase, and the guy who did uses it not to say anything about testosterone itself, or men by implication, but about the narrative around T that we have all grown up with, and that has been promoted by some rather poor science.
ReplyDeleteHere's an example of where the science (not the PC) has been going in this field. The book presents the findings of an experiment in which 85 behavioral traits that we traditionally assume are gendered were observed in several thousand adults in a few dozen countries. Once the data was collated and the computer crunched the numbers, it turned out that less than 1% of men had all 85 presumed masculine traits, and likewise less than 1% of women had all 85 presumed feminine traits. What they found was no set of traits that was strictly limited to one sex or the other. People are mosaics of traits. Some few traits showed up more commonly in one sex or the other, but the numbers were quite small in all cases. While body size and arm strength are genuinely dimorphic, behavior is much more complex and far less rigid than most people assume. That doesn't mean that there are no average differences, but even when there are, they are quite small, and more often than not affected as much by social context as genetics. In another study, for instance, Chinese men were found to be more aggressive than Chinese women in public, but when the women did not know they were being observed, showed as much aggression as the men. What people do in public is very much guided by social expectations.
PSB
The obvious...
ReplyDeletehttps://plus.thebulwark.com/p/media-still-doesnt-get-biden-voters?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
...
Seeing these arguments, I was struck by the asymmetry of our political moment: I’ve never seen centrists like Yglesias say to people on the right (or center) that it’s important to read progressives (even if they’re super woke, or whatever the left-wing equivalent of Hanania’s racism is). Nor have I seen traditional conservatives like Brooks call for empathy with people on the left, or claim that any left-wing extremism is merely an inevitable reaction to centrist and conservative elites’ mistakes.
Reporters don’t do safaris to “Biden Country,” seeking to understand the voters who put him in the White House. While there are pieces explaining how, for example, black women in Georgia suburbs made a big difference in the 2020 election, there’s nothing approaching the ongoing coverage of white men in Ohio diners.
...
Trump supporters post names and addresses of Georgia grand jurors online
ReplyDelete"ATLANTA — The purported names and addresses of members of the grand jury that indicted Donald Trump and 18 of his co-defendants on state racketeering charges this week have been posted on a fringe website that often features violent rhetoric, NBC News has learned."
But of course. Will the leak be found? Will anyone be prosecuted for it? Will any of the jurors be attacked? Stay tuned . . .
scidata:
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of which, I just saw a weather pic showing more smoke headed down to Chicagoland. Sorry :)
Actually, from what I've seen, this time will be good old AMERICAN smoke.
Darrell E:
ReplyDeleteWill the leak be found?
John Roberts will get right on it.
Amen, brother. From the same article linked above:
ReplyDelete...
Millions and millions of Americans are, for lack of a better term, Bidenists. Many don’t have strong feelings about Biden himself, and some are quite critical of him, but they tend to react to societal disruptions by seeking normalcy, not trying to increase the chaos.
Bidenists like a president who shows empathy, though they may not have realized that until confronted with the opposite. It’s not a coincidence that George W. Bush’s approval rating shot up after 9/11 and stayed high until after the invasion of Iraq, nor that various Republican governors saw sustained approval increases during the worst of COVID while Trump quickly lost his.
Bidenists actually mean what they say about democracy. As Republicans have embraced the quasi-nihilist cynicism of Trumpist politics, they’ve told themselves that everyone is unprincipled—or, as Tim Miller sardonically puts it, “LOL nothing matters”—but that’s just not true. A lot of Americans really do believe in the American idea. All men are created equal, We the People, a more perfect Union, a government of laws not of men, the arc of the moral universe bends towards justice, leader of the free world, the whole deal. Sure, it’s cheesy, and we’ve never actually achieved it, but so what? We’ve improved over time, and most Americans would like to keep trying.
...
Prominent leftist YouTuber Vaush has been calling himself a Bidenist for a couple of years now, and getting canceled for that by other leftists.
DeleteBiden ought to receive a Nobel for defeating Dolt 45 in the 2020 election. Obama received a Nobel in 2009—one might say it was for preventing the dork McCain from becoming president.
ReplyDeleteUm sorry. That's mostly as we are NOW TOLD that it was taught.
ReplyDeleteI apologize for assuming that my experience studying anthropology and archaeology at uni in the 80s is in any way relevant to the discussion. Or my current experience talking to people who teach high school anthropology classes.
It can take introductory textbooks a generation or more to catch up with current research, especially if the writers are just revising earlier editions rather than writing entirely new books. Even longer if a curriculum committee has to approve them.
What people do in public is very much guided by social expectations.
ReplyDeleteThere have been more than a few studies showing that behaviour when drunk is governed more by social expectations than by biochemistry. people from cultures where drunk=violent get violent, people from cultures where drunk=maudlin get maudlin, etc.
When in China we saw a (presumably) wife whamming her presumed husband in public.
ReplyDeleteLook, most of the arguments about human sexual dimorphism dissipate when we assume DISTRIBUTIONS and the gaussian for say height in women averages way to the left of that for men. But, unless you are a basketball mutant, there will always be a woman taller than you. And MORALLY it is despicable to let any reference to averages – even TRUE ones – interfere with any person’s right to say “I am different and I intend to prove it.” THAT is the fundamental liberal morality of Adam Smith, Thomas Paine and best articulated by Susan B Anthony and MLK.
LH the TOP meme on the right is now “We are a REPUBLIC not a mob democracy!” And every cheat to limit the voting power of the ‘mob’ is justified. Wholly ironic since the microcephalic incantation-slogan chanters and meme-repeaters are 90% republican.
Many of the same folks proclaiming that past low tech societies were all egalitarian also kvell over those Native American tribes who were by far the most brutal in enslavement, torture and genocide of rivals... while paying little attention to the Iroquoisan+Cherokeean nations who respected women and whose top heroes (Hiawatha & Sequoia) were peacemakers.
Aside from “Republic, not a democracy”, the favored banality is:
ReplyDelete“America is about the individual.”
“Can’t fight City Hall”;
“It’s the nature of the beast”...
Article IV, section 4 of the Constitution:
ReplyDeleteSECTION 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in
this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect
each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened)
against domestic Violence.
I'm sure some of Trump's lawyers have noticed the capital-R "Republican" and made the claim that the Constitution itself dictates that the Republican Party is in charge.
I'm more interested in the part that guarantees every state against domestic violence.
https://deanobeidallah.substack.com/p/maga-is-a-domestic-terrorist-threat
ReplyDelete...
There’s nothing redeeming about MAGA. Seriously, take a moment and reflect on what MAGA is about. Does MAGA contribute anything positive to our nation? No. In fact, it’s the opposite. Trump and MAGA are a cancer that has spread and now engulfs all but a small sliver of the GOP. As a result, today’s MAGA-GOP is accurately defined as a white supremacist, fascist movement that embraces violence and seeks to impose their religious beliefs as law. That is not hyperbolic, that is the cold, hard truth.
And MAGA is no longer just a fascist movement, it’s also a domestic terrorist threat thanks to Donald Trump. He has spent years radicalizing otherwise patriotic Americans to be primed to threaten and/or commit violence—just like an ISIS or Al Qaeda recruiter. As such, Trump fully understands that when he targets a person, his radicalized base will spring into action with at least threats—if not violence.
...
My opinion: This terrorist threat will not end until MAGA is treated the way Holnists were in The Postman when even deadly enemies would band together at any sighting of surplus camouflage. That is what the new Civil War they're jonesing for will look like--not armies facing off, but terrorists trying to harm or kill us, and us taking them off the board with extreme prejudice.
“America is about the individual.”
ReplyDeleteI suspect both sides would agree on that.
It's just that one side takes it to mean all individuals, while the other thinks it is all about one rather overweight balding guy who uses makeup…
LH if it comes down to suppressing tens of millions of riled-up MAGA confederates, then we'll have a phase 9 of the civil war will be hot and horrible. See the novels OUR WAR and TEARS OF ABRAHAM.
ReplyDeleteI much prefer the approach of PEELING OFF just one million residually sane - if sluggish/cowardly - Ostrich Republicans, by appealing to common sense, patriotism, science and the well-being of their children. Alas, that would require skills our Union generals lack- polemically incinerating their mantra:
"I know Trump is treason and my party has gone mad... but...
...but
... but Democrats are worse!
That's the ticket! Democrats are EVEN WORSE...
Democrats are worse, Democrats are worse, Democrats are worse, Democrats are worse, Democrats are worse, Democrats are worse, Democrats are worse, Democrats are worse, Democrats are worse, Democrats are worse, Democrats are worse, Democrats are worse, Democrats are worse, Democrats are worse, Democrats are worse, Democrats are worse, Democrats are worse!
The details of their justifications are always ludicrous, masturbatory lies, completely-diametrically opposite to fact. Which is why these ostriches bury their heads and go along with the desperate all out war vs all fact professions, while deep-down aware they are tools for the wrong side.
Dr Brin:
ReplyDeleteI much prefer the approach of PEELING OFF just one million residually sane - if sluggish/cowardly - Ostrich Republicans,
That's a strategy for keeping control of government, which of course is a good thing.
It's not a strategy for stopping the terrorists from threatening, harming, and killing us. Walking on eggshells hoping to God that we don't do something to set them off is not an option.
I'm glad Ashli Babbit is dead. I'm glad that guy who threatened President Biden and Alvin Bragg is dead. That has to happen consistently enough that the MAGA terrorists know that intimidation won't achieve their goals, and that they won't get a second chance to try.
Robert:
ReplyDelete“America is about the individual.”
I suspect both sides would agree on that.
It's just that one side takes it to mean all individuals, while the other thinks it is all about one rather overweight balding guy who uses makeup…
You might say that the Republicans think America is all about Individual-One.
"That's a strategy for keeping control of government, which of course is a good thing."
ReplyDeleteSorry that's wrong. It is ALSO a way to keep the peeling continuing, when the next clade realizes all the smarter/better folks have left the cult. It's how it is done.
David,
ReplyDeletePSB is actually pretty good with his book recommendations. I've followed a couple of them in the past and not regretted it.
His politics is farther 'left' than me, but his science POV is well centered.
Larry,
ReplyDeleteIt's not a strategy for stopping the terrorists from threatening, harming, and killing us. Walking on eggshells hoping to God that we don't do something to set them off is not an option.
I'm with our host on this point. It's not that I like the 'peel them away' strategy. It's because that's the only one I know that works.
Remember... shooting them doesn't really work. Confederates didn't vanish because they lost a war. This is a hearts-and-minds conflict.
In the Civil War (part IV) the peeling away included Lee & Longstreet and other confed leaders explicitly saying 'be good citizens.' It didn't solve everything! The Klan dug in at the County level. But it quelled all talk of guerilla war.
ReplyDeleteApple's FOUNDATION continues weaving original characters into a strange new world plot. A planet of mentalics (that later spawns the Mule) is used to slightly bend the entire plot back from the magical woo-woo that David Goyer was likely getting roasted for. Non-specific hints of Giskard are dropped everywhere. Gosh, I had enough trouble following Asimov's original story line(s). Hober Mallow and the spacers is beautiful to watch ($$$), but I have no idea what's happening there.
ReplyDeleteIt's reminiscent of being in kindergarten when the teacher hands you a box of broken/missing crayons and tells you to continue with the drawing you were making yesterday. The increasing centrality of psychohistory is encouraging. I've decided to just let go of the wheel and enjoy the ride.
Alfred Differ:
ReplyDeleteI'm with our host on this point. It's not that I like the 'peel them away' strategy. It's because that's the only one I know that works.
Long term, I know you're right.
In the immediate moment, though, what is the proper response to the physical threats against judges, jurors, election officials, etc. (and their families) by MAGAts in support of Trump? If that is not nipped in the bud--if they get away with intimidation--it will become a successful strategy.
Dr Brin:
ReplyDeleteLH the TOP meme on the right is now “We are a REPUBLIC not a mob democracy!” And every cheat to limit the voting power of the ‘mob’ is justified.
What exactly to they think that argument means? I mean, I know what they think it rules out--the concept of one person, one vote. But in place of democracy, what does it get them? What do they think being a "republic" guarantees for them?
The most forceful among them are demanding obedience to an authoritarian dictator, which whatever else it is is not a republic.
We interrupt this thread to bring you news that Yellowknife (pop.22,000, located lat. 62.4540° N), capital of Canada's NW Territories has ordered a complete evacuation of all of its inhabitants in the face of advancing wildfires.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/nwt-wildfire-emergency-update-august-16-1.6938756
The capital city of a Canadian province is being completely evacuated.
A city located in what was normally considered to be in an arctic region.
So much for fleeing to Canada when the lower latitudes get too hot.
https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2023/Items/Aug18-1.html
ReplyDeleteIt's Not Just a Hypothetical, Part I: The anger being vented by Trump and his allies, coupled with their utterly unsubstantiated claims that he's a martyr and a victim of deep corruption, is designed, in part, to spur acts of violence against the former president's supposed "enemies." And guess what? It's already working. Far-right websites are circulating what are allegedly the names, pictures and home addresses of some of the grand jurors who voted to indict Trump. Needless to say, the purpose of sharing someone's address is not so people can send them a nice Christmas card. The good news, such as it is, is that the kind of people who engage in this sort of hateful doxxing tend not to be the brightest bulbs. So, at least some (and possibly many) of the names and addresses are wrong. That said, it's very scary for those grand jurors who have been exposed, and even for the folks who aren't really grand jurors but whose names/addresses are now on some random yahoos' hit list.
It's Not Just a Hypothetical, Part II: Similarly, Chutkan and Willis have already been the target of countless threats and much racist abuse; in the former case, someone's already been arrested for making malicious threats. Both women have security details, and they are going to need them for the foreseeable future.
Like Lahaina, Yellowknife is of huge historical significance. It's the hub of northern Dene people, and contains (contained) almost half the population of the NWT. As always, great thanks to our American brothers for help in fighting this fiery dragon.
ReplyDeleteIt must really torque Trump's nuts that 2 black women are going to put him in jail.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTalk about Vile Authorities, meet Judge of the US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, James Ho.
ReplyDeleteRemember that Texas Judge, Kacsmaryk, that ordered the FDA to withdraw its approval of mifepristone? Even though the doctors that brought the case have no standing, and even though the justice system does not have the authority to overrule the FDA's scientific judgements? The Supreme Court put a hold on that order (surprise, surprise) and sent it back to the Fifth Circuit, that originally upheld it, and told them to take another look. They did, and this time they decided to only uphold part of the original order, the part revoking the FDA regulations that allow mailing of mifepristone. The case will now go back to the SC again.
What does Judge Ho have to do with this? Judge Ho was one of the 3 Fifth Circuit judges that decided the case, and he wrote a concurring opinion in which he presented his reasoning for why the original plaintiffs (some Texas doctors with an agenda) had standing to bring the case in the first place.
"In addition to the injuries analyzed by the majority, Plaintiffs have
demonstrated another basis for Article III standing: the aesthetic injury they
experience in the course of their work. See, e.g., Sierra Club v. Morton, 405
U.S. 727, 734–35 (1972) (recognizing aesthetic harm as “injury to a
cognizable interest”); Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 562–63 (1992)
(“[T]he desire to use or observe an animal species, even for purely esthetic
purposes, is undeniably a cognizable interest for purpose of standing.”); id.
at 566 (“[T]he person who observes or works with a particular animal
threatened by a federal decision is facing perceptible harm.”).
It’s well established that, if a plaintiff has “concrete plans” to visit an
animal’s habitat and view that animal, that plaintiff suffers aesthetic injury
when an agency has approved a project that threatens the animal.
. . .
Unborn babies are a source of profound joy for those who view them.
Expectant parents eagerly share ultrasound photos with loved ones. Friends
and family cheer at the sight of an unborn child. Doctors delight in working
with their unborn patients—and experience an aesthetic injury when they are
aborted.
Plaintiffs’ declarations illustrate that they experience aesthetic injury
from the destruction of unborn life.
. . .
Dr. Jester put Plaintiffs’ interest in unborn life this way: “When my
patients have chemical abortions, I lose the opportunity . . . to care for the
woman and child through pregnancy and bring about a successful delivery of
new life.” Dr. Jester Declaration ¶ 19. See Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. EPA,
937 F.3d 533, 541 (5th Cir. 2019) (recognizing judicially cognizable injury
where plaintiff experiences aesthetic harm at work).
The Supreme Court has recognized that “the person who observes or
works with a particular animal threatened by a federal decision is facing
perceptible harm, since the very subject of his interest will no longer exist.”
Lujan, 504 U.S. at 566. Every circuit, including our own, has concluded that,
when a federal agency authorizes third parties to harm flora or fauna that a
plaintiff intends to view or study, that satisfies all of the requirements for
Article III standing.
. . .
In all of these cases, a federal agency approved some action—such as
developing land or using pesticides—that threatens to destroy the animal or
plant life that plaintiffs wish to enjoy. This injury is redressable by a court
order holding unlawful and setting aside the agency approval.
And so too here. The FDA has approved the use of a drug that
threatens to destroy the unborn children in whom Plaintiffs have an interest.
And this injury is likewise redressable by a court order holding unlawful and
setting aside approval of that abortifacient drug."
See? Women aren't even ribs now, they're merely the environment for interesting wildlife.
Alas, the desperate ;appeal to anecdotes' continues: "Is China stupid? They are building hundreds of coal fired power plants instead of the supposedly cheaper solar and wind plants,"
ReplyDeleteChna is deploying solar and wind faster than any three other nations combined. There limits to that rate of acceleration and the infrastructure for building mass numbers of cheap coal fired steam generators exist at hand. They are callous dictators and they will endure the immediate pain of choking cities and acid rain - and long term harm to the planet, because they know what the people will NOT stand for is sustained blackouts.
But MCS knew all that. The key question is what he meant to convey or accomplish with that submission. To... somehow undermine the overwhelming and utter proof that surrounds us? That human carbon emissions now qualify as a deadly, existential threat to the planet, cuivilization, our lives and our children?
Turning and pointing offstage with "Whatabout!" only works till we adapt to the frantic tactic and say "NO! We will STAY focused on the absolute proofs! Answer them with refutaion if you can, not endlessdistractions:
Vanishing glaciers
Record heat temeratures blasting everywhere, year after year
The hottest month in 125,000 years.
EVERY year dozens, even hundreds of "100 year" weather events
Ocean acidification/debasing... Ocean acidification/debasing... Ocean acidification/debasing... Ocean acidification/debasing... Ocean acidification/debasing... Ocean acidification/debasing... Ocean acidification/debasing... Ocean acidification/debasing... Ocean acidification/debasing... Ocean acidification/debasing... Ocean acidification/debasing... Ocean acidification/debasing... Ocean acidification/debasing... Ocean acidification/debasing... Ocean acidification/debasing... ...
A US Navy officer corps united in utter worry
the entire community of scientific METEOROLOGY - whose reports are now fantastic, prodigiously spectacularly excellent, using the same data and models as the climate folks - almost universally telling you what you cover your ears not to hear...
...and your eyes not to see... utering stuff like that China bit in order to drown out the little, honest voice within you saying: "Maybe... um... perhaps... uh,,, we...were...wrong?"
THAT is the thing unbearable to even contemplate.
Dr Brin:
ReplyDeleteutering stuff like that China bit in order to drown out the little, honest voice within you saying: "Maybe... um... perhaps... uh,,, we...were...wrong?"
It sounds to me like he's appealing to the other little voice that goes, "Yes, continuing to burn fossil fuels is harmful...but anything else is so inconvenient."
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't matter if you believe that our CO2 emissions are an "existential" threat or not. They aren't, but nobody who believes that can be convinced otherwise.
ReplyDeleteNo, you can convince us. You just need to answer our questions.
1. Since greenhouse gas concentrations are increasing, why would that not make temperatures increase?
2. What is causing measured global temperatures to increase? If its not greenhouse gas increases, why is it not simply adding to the effects of greenhouse gas increases?
3. Why does Watt think he can show that global temperatures are not rising when he only shows the U.S. average temperature anomaly data? And what is the best-fit line for that data?
4. Why does Watt only start his analysis in 2005? Look what happens when you start you analysis in 1900 and measure it by year.
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-us-and-global-temperature
Notice anything odd about the last few decades? ;)
What is causing the difference in these presentations of the data?
We have many others, but those are a good start. :)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, I have already determined that Watt is not a reliable source of information or analysis. So asking him questions feels like a waste of time, too. :)
ReplyDeleteHowever, you might want to consider my first two questions, since they are very basic to global warming, and show why deniers are not thinking about the subject scientifically.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNo one's stopping you.
ReplyDeleteSince by your own admission, nobody is persuaded by online discussions, I can only conclude that your actual preference is to annoy with bum-plucked articles worthy of Malcolm Roberts..
mcsandberg,
ReplyDeleteThou art a coward.
There IS a way to argue for your side these guys couldn't dodge. You might not convince them, but they'd have to admit to your display of courage.
Larry,
...what is the proper response to the physical threats...
Deter, Detect, Deny
Pay attention so you can act as witness in a trial.
SAY you will.
Support reasonable jail sentences for the convicted.
MCS I understand your incantation. But it is absolutely amazing you think you won't be called on such trivially refutable assertions.
ReplyDelete- Show us the actual calculations and tabulations of those 'trillions' that are 'wasted' on solar and wind. The deep red state of texas - which its politicians cscreech these oligarch-propeled talking points, UTTERLY relies on its vast supplies of solar and wind power.
You do what your cult always does... pointing to a 'link' that offers lie-drool by a third rater.
Fact, it took 240 years for carbon based engined (steam then reciprocrating etc.) to reach levels of efficiency that solar has reached in 30, It is already far cheaper per added watt and the rate of improvement has everyone stunned.
You shrug off 'existential' threats with a blithe "they're not" without addressing a single one of the blatantly proved phenomena I listed, above, any one of which would be a crisis. TRY ANSWERING THAT LIST instead of shrugging with the superior tone of someone reciting dogma, not science.
(You accused us of 'credentialism.' Feh. But sure, Among the LONG list of matters that are factually verifiable that we could use for wagers, my knowing vastly more science... and knowing a great many of the world's top scientists... just MIGHT suggest to you a behavior and character trait called... curiosity. Reciting perhaps the sacred catechism of science:
"What if I am wrong?"
If I am wrong, and we make a better world without falling into an exaggerated crisis... boohoo. I'll pay the wagers and we'll all do fine.
If YOU are wrong, then you - personally - are helping to wreck the world that my children need.
PS I know some HONEST climate skeptics who think the acceleration of solar efficiency will slow and that storage is a problem (it is) and who have decided to do the honest thing... offer ALTERNATIVES instead of sucking up to petro boyars, murder sheiks and coal barons.
ReplyDeleteThese (alas rare) conservative skeptics offer -
- ramped-up nuclear (and many liberals are saying they'll go along, with precautions)
- geothermal, the alternative with terrific prospects
- carbon sequestration by dumping agricultural straw into ocean trenches, as I portray in a novel)
- geo engineering via atmospheric dimming as in KS Robinson'e MINISTRY FOR THE FUTURE
- or geo engr the way I did it in EARTH (1991) through ocean fertilization.
An actual, sapient conservative would (I know some) be looking for market oriented alternatives. (Alfred Differ here, former libertarian, often does!)
Note also that several of us here are former Republicans or Libertarians. We argue all the time over matters like markets vs different kinds of investment.
It is YOUR cult that has driven us together, for the sake of our kids. Against whom, yes, your cult is an existential threat.
---
Guys, I am starting to wonder about a couple of linguistic quirks. His colloquial english is generally good, but I am starting to sniff a Kremlin basement.
I don't sense a Kremlin attachment yet. Seems more (to me) like someone who "Knows A Truth" and won't consider a) being wrong about it or b) that it might be a dependent truth which we can make false by accepting a few changes.
ReplyDeleteLOTS of people cling to "A Truth" as if their identities depended on it. That's the vibe I'm getting from him. A faith.
Dr Brin:
ReplyDeleteNote also that several of us here are former Republicans or Libertarians. We argue all the time over matters like markets vs different kinds of investment.
It is YOUR cult that has driven us together, for the sake of our kids. Against whom, yes, your cult is an existential threat.
Not directly relevant, but allegorically so, many of the judges ruling against Trump and witnesses describing his crimes are Republicans. None of his defenders are Democrats.
The mantra on right-wing media is that calling Trump to account for his crimes and treachery is politically motivated where common sense and our own lying eyes can plainly see that the opposite is true. Some of the anti-Trump sentiment is political, but added to that is those who simply stand up for the law applying to everyone as well as those who honestly believe that Trumpism is an existential threat to the country's ideals the way that Naziism was in 1930s Germany.
On the other side, you have a cult who is outraged that their leader would be called to account for anything bad. Added to that are opportunists like Raphael Eduardo (aka Ted) Cruz and Miss Lindsey Graham who detest Trump personally but sees him as a means to their goals. And those whose political/economic fortunes are so tied to Trump's success that they have to back him.
In other words, defense of Trump is strictly political, whereas prosecution may be political, but also may be for a host of other motivations. The exact opposite of the right-wing talking points.
The same sort of thing is going on in the fossil fuels discussion. We're accused of "credentialism" as if the fact are on the "Fossil fuels uber alles!" side of the argument and the only motive one could have for arguing against is blind acceptance of someone else's dogma. Once again, our lying eyes tell us that the opposite is the case.
Alfred Differ:
ReplyDeleteI don't sense a Kremlin attachment yet. ...
LOTS of people cling to "A Truth" as if their identities depended on it. That's the vibe I'm getting from him. A faith
I'm still smelling sealion. A game of, "How long can I keep them occupied with responding to individual counterarguments?"
The capital city of a Canadian province is being completely evacuated.
ReplyDeleteTerritory. The arctic province in Nunavut (capital: Iqaluit), split off from the Northwest Territories some years ago. Territories have less autonomy than provinces, with more federal administration.
Yellowknife is basically embedded in forest. The trees are pretty small, because arctic, but they are pretty extensive. See this picture for an idea of what it's like.
https://era.library.ualberta.ca/items/3a808b0c-ba55-483b-84e8-bbbf19bc751c
I'm still smelling sealion.
Likewise.
Robert:
ReplyDeleteI read long ago about an arctic forest that is only knee high. At that point it's a brush fire, which is still very dangerous.
There were brush fires on the Big Island when I lived there - you could drive over from the Hilo side, which was having its usual afternoon rain, to see the fires and smoke on the Kona side. Those were rain shadow events amplified by strong Easterlies, just as happened to Lahaina.
On more normal days, you could stand in the saddle between Mauna Loa and Mauna Kea looking west and watch the sea breeze creeping uphill in the afternoon. It often caused a fog bank on the western mountain slopes as it reached high altitude, which interacted strangely with the dust devils spawned on the hot lava plain...an intensely fine line formed between extremes of humidity, like fog on Arrakis.
Sorry, old weather guy talking.
Dr. Brin,
I suspect that "market oriented alternatives" are going to need massive government subsidies in order to be short-term profitable AND large enough to make a difference before we get a culmination of tipping points that will kill a lot of people*. (I hope I'm wrong.) If governments oscillate between "there's a problem" and "it's all liberal lies" (cf. Mcsomebody), there's not going to be much investment. To the current form of market capitalism, "civilization may fall" is a null factor if it's more than a few quarters out.
*"Ministry for the Future" included a number of such Holocaust-level events, portrayed or possible. We're just getting started.
I read long ago about an arctic forest that is only knee high.
ReplyDeleteSame thing with high alpine forests. Same plant, much shorter because of the environment. Also means reforesting after a burn is tricky, because at the extremes (when they are only knee-high) the trees create their own environment, and expansion is very slow… in some cases taking centuries. (Not likely to be as big a factor in a warming arctic, though.)
If governments oscillate between "there's a problem" and "it's all liberal lies" (cf. Mcsomebody), there's not going to be much investment.
See, as an example, Ontario. Our "business-oriented" newly-elected Conservative government was willing to spend extra tax dollars to cancel carbon credits and whatnot. I say "extra dollars" because the spending had already been done. It's like how the last Conservative premier spent extra money to fill an already-bored LRT tunnel with concrete because he didn't believe in public transit. Money already spent to create it, so this was just extra money spent to make certain that a future government couldn't just start using the tunnel, and indeed it would be much more expensive to dig a new tunnel (because the best/cheapest route was now full of concrete).
It's never really about the money.
Hey, Dr. Brin. Are all your hatches battened down? The storm's almost here.
ReplyDeleteI've gotten my yard cleaned out of anything that can fly. And my fingers are crossed.
sealion
ReplyDeleteCould be, but they post intermittently. I recognize the pattern because I often do it that way too.
I still see them as a Believer.
AFR -
ReplyDeletespent the whole day battening hatches and such. And I know tomorrow I'll whine "WHY didn't I think of THAT!"
onward
ReplyDeleteonward