tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post6293124200479939759..comments2024-03-18T17:09:55.964-07:00Comments on CONTRARY BRIN: Michael Crichton, dream onDavid Brinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comBlogger105125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-87270314818852025252008-11-13T19:11:00.000-08:002008-11-13T19:11:00.000-08:00What Alex Tolley said. Also, to add obvious facts ...What Alex Tolley said. <BR/><BR/>Also, to add obvious facts to the reasons against manned space exploration...galactic cosmic rays will turn any space explorers into walking tumors if they stay on the surface of the moon or Mars for any length of time. (Reason: the moon and Mars don't have strong enough magnetic fields to channel these super-high-energy particles to the poles, as happens on earth.) GCRs are so energetic that the Apollo 11 astronauts saw intermittant brght flashes when these heavy super-accelerated nuclei impacted the vitreous humour of their eyes. <BR/><BR/>During an 18-month space voyage to Mars, astronauts would get blasted with so much of these high-energy particles that they'd probably die of cancer. <BR/><BR/>So space explorers would have to lurk in underground bases deep under the lunar or martian regolith, seldom venturing outside. If that's the case...why bother to send humans? What's the difference between having humans in deep underground bases on Mars or the moon controlling surface robots, as opposed to humans on earth tele-operating robots on Mars or the moon? We seem to have done pretty darn well with remote-controlling the recent Mars probes. So it's not obvious why we even need live humans on other planets.<BR/><BR/>Getting into low earth orbit remains the killer. That takes most of the energy and most of the money in space travel. I agree that a space elevator is ideal. However, we also need to get a <B>drastically</B> simpler LEO vehicle than the space shuttle.<BR/><BR/>The Space Shuttle requires a ground crew of 20,000 experts to launch it into orbit. That's absurd. People who gripe about the inefficiency of government bureaucracies have Example Number One in NASA's space shuttle program. It's an outrage. Ideally, we should design a Big Dumb Booster, remote controlled, pilotless, that takes a ground crew of 200 people max to get into low earth orbit. This is doable. The Russians did it. They resupply MIR with pilotless vehicles. Another example: instead of fitting up their launch vehicles with elaborate gyros and attitude control rockets to make 'em spin on the way up, they just use a rotating launch pan. The Russian launch vehicle spins on the way up because of momentum. Cheap, simple, obvious.<BR/><BR/>This is what NASA needs -- simpler, cheaper, more obvious, lower-tech solutions. 20,000 people to launch the husttle is ridiculous. We can do better.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-42793086133260157352008-11-13T09:57:00.000-08:002008-11-13T09:57:00.000-08:00Many facts here:www.davidbrin.com/ostrich2a.htmlTh...Many facts here:<BR/>www.davidbrin.com/ostrich2a.html<BR/><BR/>Thanks and happy hunting...David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-38171497039131414252008-11-13T07:04:00.000-08:002008-11-13T07:04:00.000-08:00I see your position, Dr. Brin, and I largely agree...I see your position, Dr. Brin, and I largely agree with you, I just think that there are still a lot of people who can be better reached through reason (or at least unrelenting presentation of fact after fact), and I am opposed to any kind of real 'hardline' stance, because it generally presents the appearance of refusing to consider, or even listen to the position of the opposing side, even if it is entirely not the case. <BR/><BR/>But then, that's not really what you're advocating, is it? I think I initially misunderstood what kind of stance you were advocating. Not a hardline 'we're right, you're wrong, all our way or nothing' stance, but rather a fiercer and firmer presentation of the cold, hard facts, while unyieldingly calling the regressives and ostriches to the carpet for their denial? I can certainly get behind that and push.<BR/><BR/>The biggest obstacle I see to that, though (aside from the head-in-the-sand denial itself), and the biggest obstacle to the reasoned approach all together, is gathering enough hard, verifiable and reliable references to back up the facts we present, references that we can throw in the ostriches' faces when they refute or deny the facts, or try to play on one of their just-so stories or beliefs. Because I can report all the facts until my face turns blue, but Uncle Jack's denial will reject them without some irrefutable references to back them up. <BR/><BR/>That's been one of my biggest roadblocks, anyway - a lack of irrefutable sources to back up the facts, especially sources that I can be presented quickly and easily, even offline (and especially offline, since most of my Uncle Jacks are not very internet savvy, and I usually only see them when I don't have access to my internetz).Ilithi Dragonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10300247936272572280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-534910151717830722008-11-12T21:32:00.000-08:002008-11-12T21:32:00.000-08:00Ilithi, nobody has worked harder to come up with r...Ilithi, nobody has worked harder to come up with reasoned arguments to use with sincer conservatives than I have. Probably nobody in the entire USA. My "ostrich" essays were meant to show - <I>entirely from the perspective of rational conservative values </I> - how thoroughly such people have been betrayed by their own side...<BR/><BR/>...and how thoroughly they have been lied-to - or lie to themselves - when they delusionally insist that "politicians are all the same."<BR/><BR/>If I seem militant and angry, it is in part because reason has done so little good. Yes, a six% margin in the popular vote is HUGE by modern standards. But it is not the repudiation that the Gang of Klepto Thieves and Outright Traitors deserved. And lazy delusions make many ostriches "reason-resistant" if not "reason-proof."<BR/><BR/>I have found that a certain amount of outright anger is not only called-for, but actually rocks these ostriches back and forces them to ponder why their always so-tepid liberal cousin may actually blaze with righteous patriotic (!!) anger. <BR/><BR/>(And express it in patriotic terms! It is time to yank that term back from posers!)<BR/><BR/> Our nation has been weakened by every conceivable measure...<BR/><BR/>...and THAT is where you start. We were strong, respected, loved, rich and ready, under Clinton. All brigades tanned and trained, etc... and all of that's reversed. Such a vast list of diametric opposites puts the lie to "they are all the same."<BR/><BR/>As does the utter failure of a billion dollar witch hunt to ever nail a SINGLE Clintonite with a single official (that's official) wrongdoing.<BR/><BR/>Tell them the time for just-so stories is over. From now on, when they slag Obama etc based on some rumor,<I> dare them to put money down in a time-limited bet! With the burden of proof -- actual proof -- on those who would smear the president of the nation. </I> (Dig it, there was tons of proof re Bush crimes.)<BR/><BR/> And defy them to admit that, when the stories ALWAYS fade away, unproved, that it actually means something!<BR/><BR/>say: "Wouldn't YOU want a perpetual lack of evidence to end rumors against you? Would not you - if subjected to endless slander-rumors -- shout out PROVE IT! PROVE EVEN ONE OF THESE MALICIOUS STORIES!" They would demand it, so it is only fair to demand it of them.<BR/><BR/>As for the voting trend maps, have you seen the one showing blue for areas <I>Obama improved on Clinton's performance</I> vs red for those areas he did worse. THAT is the trend indicator, and it is all blue, everywhere but Arizona and Appalachia and the deepest south.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-55260109856687716292008-11-12T20:02:00.000-08:002008-11-12T20:02:00.000-08:00Tony,I'd have to agree with you on that, about tru...Tony,<BR/><BR/>I'd have to agree with you on that, about true conservatives. I just wish more people would see the need for their brand to be refurbished, or recreated under a new name.<BR/><BR/>As for PA... The areas around Philly in the east and Pittsburgh in the west (two biggest population centers in the state) are both pretty solidly blue, as well as the area in and around State College (main Penn State campus) and the majority of the state's population, but most of the state outside of that, including the area I grew up in, is red. <BR/><BR/>Now, I'm not saying the concept is entirely inaccurate, I just have a thing against stereotypes.Ilithi Dragonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10300247936272572280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-40906686962648453432008-11-12T19:29:00.000-08:002008-11-12T19:29:00.000-08:00ilithi, my personal view about the 'decent' conser...ilithi, my personal view about the 'decent' conservatives is that they are showing 'brand loyalty' to the conservative cause.<BR/><BR/>And why not? True conservativism encompasses a number of useful traits (risk management being one)<BR/><BR/>My thought is that the current GOPpy crop should be re-branded as 'self-servatives'. That might help with the winnowing.<BR/><BR/>wrt urban vs country: while it is unfair to individuals, there is some evidence for it. A <A HREF="http://rchrd.com/weblog/pivot/includes/re.php?http://www-personal.umich.edu/%7Emejn/election/" REL="nofollow">high resolution map of voting trends</A> in the election clearly shows that country folk voted for the GOP and city-slickers went Democrat (Ooh! They've updated it for the 2008 election!)<BR/><BR/>(Pa looks pretty blue anyway ;-)<BR/><BR/>(essresi - SRSI: Simulated Repetitive Strain Injury - the modelling used to demonstrate the damage caused by doing the same thing again and again while expecting a different outcome)Tony Fiskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14578160528746657971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-28171298848578009932008-11-12T18:52:00.000-08:002008-11-12T18:52:00.000-08:00Cliff, Dr. Brin:I see your point on approaching th...Cliff, Dr. Brin:<BR/><BR/>I see your point on approaching the more radical members of the lamented GOP ('regressives' to coin a phrase), but what about those who are not so radical? The 'romantics', who are normally very nice, reasonable and intelligent people, but still mired in the muck of partisanship, following the party line not because they're radical or corrupt, but because they're simply still bogged down in the, for lack of a better term, 'brain washing' of both the neoconcervatives, and the general concepts of the party system as a whole?<BR/><BR/>I have several friends, and family members, who would fall into that category, and I'm sure many others do as well. I don't think serving these types with a hardline stance is the way to go, for the very reasons I presented against taking a hardline stance above. It will only drive them further away, and deeper into the arms of the radicals and the corrupts most of us here are opposing.<BR/><BR/><BR/>One of the most common arguments I've gotten from this type is that the 'other side' isn't any better, that they're 'just as bad', being no less corrupt or susceptible to temptation, and no more concerned for the common people than the current batch. I actually think this is a negative side-effect of the over-saturation of suspicion of authority influences in popular media. People have become TOO suspicious of authority, loosing all trust in most authority figures, ESPECIALLY governmental authority figures. In this mindset, they're ALL corrupt, they're ALL lying, cheating, stealing, two-bit, good-for-nothing con-artists, so what's the difference between one and the other? I get hearty agreements that the people in there now are bad and corrupt, but run into a wall if I try to suggest that any other politician, no matter who they are, is any less bad or would do any different.<BR/><BR/>Yet, despite this general complete lack of trust for politicians as a whole, they still vote along party lines, because the politicians are supposed to be following the general policies and moral and ethical positions of the party. I still think reasoned arguments and presentations of enlightenment are the best means to sway these people, though presenting convincing evidence will be a challenge, since they tend to reject anything that would suggest a <I>politician</I> might actually make some kind of attempt to do the job our taxes are paying them to do, and that we elected them for.<BR/><BR/>The other type of regressive I most commonly encounter are those from the 'religious right', whose faith-guided moral beliefs ring to a certain harmony with the 'party line', that has been so custom-tailored to fit those moral and ethical beliefs. With anything involving religion, a hardline stance of opposition is the LAST thing you want to do, because if there is anything that strengthens faith, it's opposition. I think a lot of these people simply fail to see the corruption and how their faith-based morality is being used against them. And history has certainly shown us how easy it is for people in power to do take advantage of religion in exactly the same way.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Then there are the 'true' regressives, the people who openly admit their belief that humanity cannot better itself, not even bothering to hope for it because they consider it a naive pipe dream, and who openly admit their lack of faith in, or outright contempt for humanity. Would a hardline stance work against such as these? I don't think so, either. I think it would simply invoke cynical comments, and, from their point of view, only be a demonstration of naive and pig-headed ignorance of how the world really worked and what people were really like.<BR/><BR/>Also, Dr. Brin, I think you're falling into your own sterotypes with your 'city folk vs country folk' concept. I don't think you actually follow that stereotype, but I've seen you repeat it often enough that I feel the need to caution against it. Especially because I was born and raised in rural PA, and can barely tolerate living in cities, large or small, yet I am almost entirely in agreement with your progressive stance, and the progressive stances of many others who post here, and am far from conservative (though I consider myself almost equally as far from the liberal side of the fence). It's not a matter of city vs country, and if the reports from the election I've been hearing are any indication, less and less about education vs uneducation (though that's still definitely a huge factor). Anyway, I should probably stop there before I go off on another tangent that I'm too tired to properly present. I just wanted to point out that I'm a country boy, born and raised, and I don't jive with the stereotype of the 'progressive' city folk vs the 'regressive' country folk (then again, I have always maintained that I'm weird... Normal people scare me...).<BR/><BR/><BR/>@Rob on the supernatural: I consider myself a man of science, but I also very firmly believe in magic, and see no reason why the two should be irreconcilable. Magic (or the various forces that fall under that general heading) is simply another force of the universe, another piece of existence, which hasn't been given a whole lot of serious scientific examination, and which, like many things in advanced physics, is beyond the means of our technology to properly detect and examine in detail. Science is simply the study and collection of knowledge of the universe, excluding nothing. <BR/><BR/>I don't follow this without proofs of my own, either, such as an occasional connection to my twin sister (such as getting dizzy and faint at soccer practice when I was well rested and hydrated and nowhere near my limits of exertion, at the exact same moment my sister had to stop and sit down and hydrate because she had missed the first several practices and hadn't yet gotten used to the intensity at which we were training). I've also been mentally contacted by my best friend, once. She was meditating on my over her lunch break, and at the exact time she was doing that (I confirmed it with her later), I felt her presence pop into my mind, like she was there, and focusing on me, only not actually there. A very interesting experience, to say the least, though it lasted only briefly. There are other proofs for my belief as well, though those are of a more personal nature.Ilithi Dragonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10300247936272572280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-3246904958976275592008-11-12T16:55:00.000-08:002008-11-12T16:55:00.000-08:00DB: "And America IS the enlightenment."Ahem. The ...DB: "And America IS the enlightenment."<BR/><BR/>Ahem. The enlightenment first appeared in Europe and has a long history of success there. Arguably more success there than in the US of late. It is extending nicely into other cultures too, although many still resist it.Alex Tolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01556422553154817988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-87320734188256716612008-11-12T16:35:00.000-08:002008-11-12T16:35:00.000-08:00Those may have been "cobblies"... things that dog ...Those may have been "cobblies"... things that dog notice all the time (hence the frenzied barking) but humans seldom. See CITY by Clifford Simak. I never excluded the possibility...<BR/><BR/>...Otoh, friends walking side by side can also be on a shared (perhaps involuntary) acid trip... ;-)<BR/><BR/>The thing about quasi delusional or unverifiable things is this... we need to stay open and interested, keep seeking new modes of verification while not refusing the psychic benefits of the creepily ineffable!<BR/><BR/>But such stuff belongs nowhere near policy! Neither does fantasy, storytelling or romanticism. It wasn't just Bush who ruled us "from the gut" but every monstrous king and tyrant across 10,000 years.<BR/><BR/>"Gut" can be a good clue provider. By all means investigate any gut suspicions and back them up! But also be willing to <I>lay wagers</I> on your gut feelings, and pay off, and admit it when your gut has been so wrong it's bankrupting you. As the right wing's gut proved insanely wrong over and over, re Bill Clinton.<BR/><BR/>People who base policy on "gut" - without either proving it or paying off failed wagers -- are fools and hypocrites and liars and bona fide traitors to the enlightenment.<BR/><BR/>And America IS the enlightenment.<BR/>Or oughta be.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-81955600402281840172008-11-12T16:22:00.000-08:002008-11-12T16:22:00.000-08:00While Stephen King might not believe in vampires, ...While Stephen King might not believe in vampires, I have encountered things that cannot be explained away by science. Specifically, four years ago I went through what I call the Summer of Shadows, where these black forms kept appearing outdoors and moving despite the lack of wind and lack of movement by overhead trees (or even the lack of trees).<BR/><BR/>These shadow people were a blackness that was darker than black, and almost seemed to shimmer with the lack of light. Nor were they limited to two-dimensional forms. Some floated in mid-air, dark splotches where a shadow should not exist.<BR/><BR/>After the 2004 Presidential Election, the shadows stopped appearing, for the most part.<BR/><BR/>And ironically enough, my Republican friend was by my side and verified what I saw without my telling him what I was seeing.<BR/><BR/>(Also, on midsummer night, I saw three circles of light... or more specifically, disks of light that hovered an inch off the ground. My friend saw more of these faerie lights than I did, but those three disks are the ones I remember... and saw in a region where the shadow figures were not to be seen.)<BR/><BR/>So I'm not one to ignore feelings and intuition and the like. I have witnessed things that cannot be explained away by science. And I know there is much more to this universe than what our sensors and sciences may lead us to believe.<BR/><BR/>(That said, I still take my friend's "bad feelings" about Obama with a ton of salt... because I trust my own gut feelings, and I've not had bad feelings about Obama himself.)<BR/><BR/>Rob H.Acacia H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07678539067303911329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-83812437715326265362008-11-12T15:14:00.000-08:002008-11-12T15:14:00.000-08:00Militant Moderate!Defy all #!#! fanatics. Adults ...Militant Moderate!<BR/>Defy all #!#! fanatics. Adults negotiate solutions!<BR/>(It's the American way.)David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-31468212250298491032008-11-12T14:44:00.000-08:002008-11-12T14:44:00.000-08:00Oh yeah, Daggatt has a post about the $150B tax br...Oh yeah, Daggatt has a post about the <A HREF="http://daggatt.blogspot.com/2008/11/bailout-blues.html" REL="nofollow">$150B tax break</A> Paulson cut for the banks. <BR/><BR/>Go swine!JuhnDonnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06795417373366495092noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-70967140698788624862008-11-12T14:42:00.000-08:002008-11-12T14:42:00.000-08:00Hmm...Militant Moderate!I like it!Just needs a bit...Hmm...<BR/><BR/><I>Militant Moderate!</I><BR/><BR/>I like it!<BR/><BR/>Just needs a bit of slogan underneath it to make a great bumper sticker. Any ideas?<BR/><BR/><I>Fixing the world's problems</I> ?JuhnDonnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06795417373366495092noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-84569879062893068422008-11-12T14:13:00.000-08:002008-11-12T14:13:00.000-08:00Better yet, have the satisfaction of looking them ...Better yet, have the satisfaction of looking them in the eye and saying:<BR/><BR/>"You lost the popular vote in 2000, yet declared a "mandate" to rule by fiat, without negotiation or listening. Your side strove to expand the power of an imperial autarchy-presidency and sneered at "whiners" who then complained.<BR/><BR/>"You would deserve what you got, then, if the Presidency you sought to invest with unrestrained power now stomped all over your political desires, backed by a GENUINE popular mandate.<BR/><BR/>"Go wallow in your fantasies. Waste your Christmas money buying guns that will still be legal one year, four years or eight years from now. (Democrats now realize WE may need them.) Keep making up unprovable stories as your reasons to stay bitter and uncooperative, while we city folk have all the facts, statistics and mature due-process stuff on our side. <BR/><BR/>"Keep marginalizing conservatism, while poor, lamented Barry Goldwater spins in his grave and we are denied the wisdom that a sane conservatism could have provided.<BR/><BR/>"Oh, we'll try to be patient and not laugh in your faces, when your vaunted, frenetically flag-waving version of "super-patriotism" proves paper thin, and you switch to waving secessionist flags and hanging posters of Nathan Bedford Forest and Timothy McVeigh. You've already proved what you are and some things are dismally predictable.<BR/><BR/>"Indeed, we'll probably keep on trying to reason with you. It's in our blood, we true patriots of the deep American Revolution -- a revolution of freedom and reason against fanaticism. The most important thing any nation ever did.<BR/><BR/>"But we admit we're human. And it is possible that we, the rational and educated and reasoning majority could perhaps get fed up. We're human. In theory, we might finally surrender to human nature and start ruling the way you always said that those in power should. For the good of all. After all, you and Bush fought hard to create an imperial, unaccountable, king-like presidency. Fools.<BR/><BR/>"I hope it never happens, but if it does, it'll have been almost all your doing, and you'll miss the pragmatic negotiators we once were. Then we'll see who the whiners are. Crybabies."David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-13272297619665520262008-11-12T13:47:00.000-08:002008-11-12T13:47:00.000-08:00ilithi dragon - I'm glad I'm not the only one who ...ilithi dragon - I'm glad I'm not the only one who didn't understand how people survive vaporization by laser.<BR/><BR/>I do have to disagree with you on the compromise issue (and I'm going along with Brin here). <BR/><BR/>I think your approach would work if we were dealing with people who can adjust their behavior to reflect facts.<BR/>But really, for the most extreme wingnuts, trying to reason with them is taken as a sign of weakness. <I>Liberals</I> compromise and discuss, and heaven forfend that they ever resemble a liberal.<BR/><BR/>So you have to take the matches away from them and leave them to learn through pain, or die.Cliffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04198405937534052637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-88535745323869546192008-11-12T11:54:00.000-08:002008-11-12T11:54:00.000-08:00Rob H, your friend's "creepy feeling"...Rob H, your friend's "creepy feeling" about Obama is yet another story. Stories, stories stories... I tell em for a living. But dig it. Stephen King doesn't ACTUALLY believe in vampires.<BR/><BR/>Doug, Ishall ask my beauteous & sagacious web designer to look into the memewar piece. Strange. <BR/><BR/>I never claimed that the most fundamental Russian personality trait was gone with the fall of the Berlin Wall! It is rooted in many things, like winters (brrrr) and the way they raise their kids. I simply said that when a generation came that finally had never known either invasion or Stalin, it would ease enough for them to start acting a bit in their own self-interest. <BR/><BR/>They are doing that now, in a way. Though another Bushite crime has been to stoke that paranoia above a simmer, instead of helping lull it into deep sleep.<BR/><BR/>Israeli paranoia is proportionate to the risk they face. And So have most of their responses.<BR/><BR/>Ilithi, the kind of grotesque immaturity that you are describing is one more reason that Republicans (in general, not as isolated individuals) should not be trusted with more power than the disposal of a burnt match -- that's been drowned in the toilet... and then only by guiding their hands gently to the flusher knob and supervising carefully till it's done.<BR/><BR/>We have to take a position that they can respect, which means utterly in their faces. Stop trying to reason with "no-compromise" people and instead tell them that their stance is treason. Literal and total treason to the fundamental adult basis of the Enlightenment. It is precisely what the Russians have done, in rushing into Big Man worship of Putin.<BR/><BR/>Their stance is why GWBush isolated himself from all criticism and citokate, running an administration rife with delusion, corruption and failure.<BR/><BR/>True, Clinton tried too hard to reason with maniacs. But BHO will do better. Cherrypicking sane grownups from amid the GOP and leaving the "no compromise" fanatics in a rump Party of The Stupid, to play their kindergarten games.<BR/><BR/>And that goes double for the no-compromise left!<BR/><BR/>Moderate reasonableness has got to be a militant movement. One of ferocity and passion and determination! We need to remember that we moderates and negotiators and pragmatic problem solvers and believers in citokate and accountability <I>are the rebels!</I> Against the old ways of fanaticism and delusion and oversimplification and tyranny.<BR/><BR/>We must crush and marginalize all political movements that refuse to negotiate kije grownups!<BR/><BR/>(And if that makes you smile with iorny, then you are one of us... and cursed be he who quotes THAT line out of context.)David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-13035541604312543152008-11-12T10:47:00.000-08:002008-11-12T10:47:00.000-08:00I always try to stress the climate-change mitigati...I always try to stress the climate-change mitigation as a kind of secular version of Pascal's Wager. <BR/><BR/>"The Earth is getting warmer, many scientists who know more about it than I seem to believe human activity contributes to it in some degree. We should take steps now to minimize our contributions. If we're wrong, well, we spend some money and get better gas mileage, if we're right, we save our asses big time. Conversely, if we do nothing and we are right about this global warming thing...well..."<BR/><BR/>And, by the way, I've often said that environmental stewardship is a conservative value. <BR/><BR/>On other fronts, Nate Silver takes a jab at the idea that the new Obama voters in Calif. are responsible for the passing of Prop 8 here <BR/><BR/>http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/prop-8-myths.html<BR/><BR/>I'm inclined to agree with him and think that it's a dangerous and divisive meme that should be squashed before it fosters another rift among minority populations. <BR/><BR/>And, as silly as I think Prop 8 is, the banning of adoption for nonmarried people in Arkansas is just barbaric. <BR/>Even if you're not an advocate of gay marriage, I think it's just downright hurtful and blatantly anti-family. <BR/><BR/>While I'm off on a tangent, I just wanted to point out to Dr. Brin that "garrige" is where British people park their cars. ;-)<BR/><BR/>Oh, and William Shatner, you're posts are both brilliant and long, I confess that I often skip over them and then read them later (but I usually DO read them). <BR/><BR/>My non-work access to the intertubes is sporadic this week, sorry to ramble, but I will be back soon!Matt DeBlasshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17666227904684289223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-84537093318236421192008-11-12T09:40:00.000-08:002008-11-12T09:40:00.000-08:00I have to agree with you on the last point there, ...I have to agree with you on the last point there, Rob. A few of my self-identifying conservative friends have voiced opinions that they think Obama is weak because he 'waffles' on subjects and 'compromises', instead of taking a hard-line, all-or-nothing, refusal-to-budge stance on 'critical issues'. The problem with that is that, first, being willing to compromise on issues, especially issues that you cannot get everything you want on (or not any time soon) is not a sign of weakness, but a willingness to cooperate, and the ability to recognize that your viewpoint isn't the only strongly-held belief, whether or not it's right. Second, it's been my experience that the willingness to compromise in order to get things done requires a lot of strength, especially when you're compromising on issues you feel strongly about (or you're dealing with someone who feels strongly about their position), where as throwing out a hardline stance and rejecting all considerations that don't match almost completely is actually pretty easy - you just gotta keep repeating yourself and reject anything that isn't exactly what you want (especially if your position is a long and well-established party line with well-developed reasoning and catch-phrases pre-made for you to use).<BR/><BR/>Additionally, such hardline stances only work with people <I>who already agree with the position</I>, in one form or another. You won't convince someone who thinks you are wrong by being a hardliner about your position - you'll just drive them further away, deeper into their own convictions, and only make yourself look like a stubborn, repetative fool in their eyes. Yes, if you're loud enough, or have enough people backing you, you can drown out or tramp down opposing positions with a hardline stance, but you don't really <I>convince</I> anyone of your position, you basically just spam them out, until they can't be heard or just give up trying. Is that victory? I guess it could be, in that whatever position or idea the hardliner is preaching gains dominance, but the opposing viewpoints will still be there, just in the background or driven underground, where they can't be eradicated.<BR/><BR/>That victory can be achieved through compromise, though, because a willingness to compromise indicates a willingness to at least hear and understand the opposing views, and acknowledge the right for those views to be held, thus making people who disagree with you and would reject anything you say by reflex if you took a hardline stance, to be more accepting of your position, and susceptible to the influences of your position, especially if you're the one taking charge of the compromise initiative. <BR/><BR/>Lastly, I've also heard a lot of people argue that compromise is 'giving in', accepting something less than victory on critical issues and not continuing to work towards that 'total victory' of whatever critical issue is perceived to be right/just/correct/moral/etc. This is incorrect as well, because accepting a compromise does not mean that you have to stop working towards achieving your goals on that issue, it just means that you are settling for a partial victory in the short term, where you know that a total victory is impossible. You can still work towards the total victory of your position in the long term while accepting compromise in the short term, after all. For example, agreeing to a ban only on late-term abortion with considerations for the health of the mother now does not mean I would have to give up working towards a total ban on abortion in the future, it just means that I'm smart enough to recognize that I am NOT going to get a total ban on abortion now, now matter how much I may want it or may think abortion is morally wrong, and that a partial victory now is better than nothing, ESPECIALLY if it allows me to continue working towards a total ban on abortion from a position in which the opposing sides would be more sympathetic, or at least open-minded to my arguments.<BR/><BR/>Would you rather do, get nothing at all until you can achieve your entire position all at once, or take what victories you can now while working towards the total realization of your goals, especially when the chance for total victory in anything remotely close near-term is nonexistent?Ilithi Dragonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10300247936272572280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-34654554386077284842008-11-12T09:32:00.000-08:002008-11-12T09:32:00.000-08:00David, I'm having a problem with your web page:htt...David, I'm having a problem with your web page:<BR/><BR/>http://www.davidbrin.com/newmemewar.htm<BR/><BR/>Allow me to post a short excerpt of what I see...<BR/><BR/>---begin quote ---<BR/>In fact, I think that we should go forth and <I>crush</I> every other worldview that doesn't promote tolerance!<BR/><BR/>@ ��� �� @��.@ ���.� ��� @� ..��� . ��� ��� �� @�� @� @�� @. ����@�� @� @���@�� @� `��. .���.` �� � .���� `�� � ��� �� � .0���.�0 @��.�0 @��.�0 ��. ��.�. `����. .���� @�� @� ..���.�.� ��� �� .0���.� ��� �� @��.@ 0���.� ��� �� `��.�.. ��� ��� �� @�� @� @�� @� ����@�� @�<BR/><BR/>---end quote---<BR/><BR/>Something went horribly wrong somewhere. Everything after that one line consists of garbled characters.<BR/><BR/>Incidentally, is the Paranoia worldview still in retreat? (Recently, Russia has taken to acting like a 19th century imperial power. Another bastion of Paranoia is Israel. Israel has been even more paranoid than Russia ever since its founding in 1947 - and Israel really does have powerful enemies that are out to get it!)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-10146051130983702312008-11-12T07:51:00.000-08:002008-11-12T07:51:00.000-08:00Well, my friend explained that he has a "bad feeli...Well, my friend explained that he has a "bad feeling" about Obama and that when he listens to Obama speak, he gets the same chill he got concerning an ex-friend of his who turned out to be a less-than-pleasant individual.<BR/><BR/>While I respect my friend's intuitive flashes, he also did stay married to a woman who abused him (physically and emotionally) for 13 years, and who still has to remind himself of how bad she was at times to keep from wanting to go back to her (though much of that is also he misses his kids and is worried for their welfare). So I have to wonder how much of this "psychic flash" of his is due to true intuition and how much is fear of the changes that an Obama Presidency will bring.<BR/><BR/>Pretty much the largest fear I've heard from the people around me is that Obama is going to be weak on the international front and that we're going to "surrender" to Al Qaeda and Iran. This is perhaps the largest failing of Republican rule that this belief we can bully other countries around, and that diplomacy (and give-and-take) is a sign of weakness has become so prevalent in this nation.<BR/><BR/>Rob H.Acacia H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07678539067303911329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-47389752422262608692008-11-11T21:40:00.000-08:002008-11-11T21:40:00.000-08:00What's so weird about this "no brainer" is that it...What's so weird about this "no brainer" is that it is the so-called "conservatives saying to forget "waste-not" and thriftiness and efficiency and savings, while it is the so-called free-spending libruls who balance budgets and wag their fingers saying to re-use and pinch pennies and save for a rainy day.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-81871980166651221382008-11-11T20:56:00.000-08:002008-11-11T20:56:00.000-08:00Speaking as someone who is still not sure that glo...Speaking as someone who is still not sure that global warming is anthropogenic, I still think all the action called for by eager and optimistic environmentalists is worth doing. <BR/><BR/>There is simply *no downside* to finding new and clean sources of energy, and to adding efficiency to our energy-burning engines, and to being less wasteful and more far-sighted in how we allocate and spend our resources. <BR/><BR/>None. Less waste equals more use, period. Everyone is wealthier.Rob Perkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15618647194288598056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-60388959264631965932008-11-11T16:39:00.000-08:002008-11-11T16:39:00.000-08:00Because it's science! } ; = 8 PYeah, it bothered m...Because it's science! } ; = 8 P<BR/><BR/>Yeah, it bothered me, too. I think I read back over it three or four times the first time through, trying to figure out what I was missing that made the lasers not vaporize or slice-and-dice them... <BR/><BR/><BR/>Maybe the lasers just obliterated the person down to a few bits of genetic material, which got sent through to the aliens on the other side, who then reconstructed the person from the genetic material (since these interdimensional aliens are such helpful people)?Ilithi Dragonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10300247936272572280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-14587825114264126332008-11-11T15:55:00.000-08:002008-11-11T15:55:00.000-08:00David Brin: "Even if the 99% of sages proved utter...David Brin: "Even if the 99% of sages proved utterly wrong, a big effort to develop efficiency technologies would only benefit us all, and especially America"<BR/><BR/>This is also a somewhat disingenuous. If the new technology costs much more to operate, there will be a net drag on the economy. Essentially this is the argument of the fossil fuel companies - existing technologies are the cheapest way to deliver and use energy. If the efficient energy technologies incur costs that are greater than the cost of fuel saved, there is an economic loss.<BR/><BR/>Please note that I am not arguing that we should not do this, as the costs of environmental damage and ensuring oil supplies, if fully accounted for, might change this equation. (Assuming we can even maintain supplies for much more than a few decades). What I am saying is that one cannot make blanket economic statements about the benefits of changing the existing the energy system when it is not clear at all what the truth of this is.Alex Tolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01556422553154817988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-58062969256480124282008-11-11T15:33:00.000-08:002008-11-11T15:33:00.000-08:00Another thing on Crichton - I really liked "Timeli...Another thing on Crichton - I really liked "Timeline," except for one small detail:<BR/>The time travel science he used. Or I should probably say, "science."<BR/><BR/>Never mind the notion of sitting back and letting people from an alternate dimension, who have figured this stuff out, do the heavy lifting. (I believe that was the explanation - "We don't know how, but someone in another timeline does and they'll be happy to help!")<BR/><BR/>No, the notion of shrinking people down to subatomic size by burning off atoms with lasers was what got me. (That was how they shrunk the adventurers down to allow them to get through the wormhole.)<BR/>I tried to point out to a friend that if you were to shrink someone this way, they wouldn't end up with tiny little brains that use special tiny little atoms, but rather the cells would get burnt away and they would get really dumb before they died.<BR/>He shrugged and said Crichton was using actual science for this stuff.<BR/><BR/>Of course, there may have been some critical detail I missed that makes it all okay to burn someone to ash with a laser and send them through a wormhole. Anyone?Cliffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04198405937534052637noreply@blogger.com