Anyone have any thoughts on this graph? 65% of Democrats want the government to decide what is true and what is not and to restrict anything they deem to be false even if it limits freedom of info. Are these the same people that spent the last 4 years telling us Trump was going to take us to fascism/authoritarianism? Are you shitting me...
The poll presents a false dichotomy. We could just let journalists decide on what the news is instead of bankers, advertisers, or the government. Same goes for internet influencers, there have been quite a few suggestions on how to overturn things like demonetizing and algorithmically suppressing people because of their political views, that don't involve the government in any way.
I don't think the media went far enough in warning about the dangers of Trump. Last I checked fox news was the most viewed media in the US and they were licking his boots up until jan 6th. The liberal media focused on the wrong issues when it came to Trump, and he was clearly a dangerous demagogue. I didn't actually expect him to go that far. Would it be hyperbolic if someone in 2010 said a presidential candidate would be able to convince a good share of the public that an election was rigged against them? I would've bet against it.
What does there being other options for dealing with misinformation have to do with the fact that 65% of Democrats still want the government to censor and control information to only allow what's "true" to get by. That's absolutely insane.
1
Liquid`Drone Norway. Oct 09 2021 12:28. Posts 3093
If Jeff Bezos magically solved climate change tomorrow I'd happily build him a shrine for personal worship, I could perhaps even be on board with sacrificing him my firstborn. The idea that 'leftists don't care about climate change because they're not talking about solution x' is a mindnumbingly stupid take and I have 0 interest in talking with people who try to introduce the topic in such a manner.
lol POKER
1
Stroggoz New Zealand. Oct 09 2021 13:02. Posts 5299
Anyone have any thoughts on this graph? 65% of Democrats want the government to decide what is true and what is not and to restrict anything they deem to be false even if it limits freedom of info. Are these the same people that spent the last 4 years telling us Trump was going to take us to fascism/authoritarianism? Are you shitting me...
The poll presents a false dichotomy. We could just let journalists decide on what the news is instead of bankers, advertisers, or the government. Same goes for internet influencers, there have been quite a few suggestions on how to overturn things like demonetizing and algorithmically suppressing people because of their political views, that don't involve the government in any way.
I don't think the media went far enough in warning about the dangers of Trump. Last I checked fox news was the most viewed media in the US and they were licking his boots up until jan 6th. The liberal media focused on the wrong issues when it came to Trump, and he was clearly a dangerous demagogue. I didn't actually expect him to go that far. Would it be hyperbolic if someone in 2010 said a presidential candidate would be able to convince a good share of the public that an election was rigged against them? I would've bet against it.
What does there being other options for dealing with misinformation have to do with the fact that 65% of Democrats still want the government to censor and control information to only allow what's "true" to get by. That's absolutely insane.
It has a lot to do with this. For one, both sides of the political spectrum in that poll are either ignoring the alternatives to authoritarianism or just aren't aware of them. That's pretty significant. I do like to shift attention to these issues because I think they are just far more important. The democrats that sincerely haven't thought about democratizing the media could be made aware of this. Why is this absolutely insane?
The insane thing about that poll is republicans claiming to be totally against a government monopoly on the truth while supporting a president that monopolized his own version of the truth and was an even bigger pathological lier than the ones preceding him.
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
Last edit: 09/10/2021 14:06
1
Stroggoz New Zealand. Oct 09 2021 13:14. Posts 5299
On October 09 2021 11:28 Liquid`Drone wrote:
If Jeff Bezos magically solved climate change tomorrow I'd happily build him a shrine for personal worship, I could perhaps even be on board with sacrificing him my firstborn. The idea that 'leftists don't care about climate change because they're not talking about solution x' is a mindnumbingly stupid take and I have 0 interest in talking with people who try to introduce the topic in such a manner.
It's not a dumb take at all. If nuclear really was that significant and there was every reason to be confident in it, then the left ignoring it would show that they don't care about climate change. But there just isn't really any reason to beleive that this is the case (to me).
I mostly don't talk much about nuclear because im not an expert on it, I try to follow mainstream scientific opinion on this and the debate doesn't seem very settled to me. Most think nuclear has a niche roll in dealing with carbon emissions from what i've seen. It doesn't make sense to give it so much attention when there are lots of other technological innovations, almost all of which are very accumulative. They don't just arrive in one day but are being constantly improved over time. Batteries and agricultural technology for example.
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
Last edit: 09/10/2021 13:30
1
Liquid`Drone Norway. Oct 09 2021 14:52. Posts 3093
No, it's a really dumb take because it assumes that 'being ignorant of how great of a solution (nuclear) is' is the same as 'not caring about the problem'. It's like saying 'right wingers really love starving children' - while I'll certainly argue that some policies favored by the right wing are likely to increase the amount of children who lack food, I really don't think the motivation behind favoring those policies is that they want to increase the amount of children who are not able to eat. It also turns 'the left' into some type of monolith.
I'm also not an expert on nuclear, I've also followed the debate, and like you, I don't have the impression that the science is nearly as settled as many pro-nuclear people claim. Maybe I'm wrong here, though. I do have some impression that building/developing nuclear might take a bit too long compared to how immediate our emissions need to be cut. But that, again, is a scientific debate I'm not really equipped to take part in. I have no problems with nuclear being part of the solution. Totally on board with that. However, it's not the only one, and 'climate change' is only one area of 'environmental collapse' that we are dealing with.
Like, when 'the left' argues 'eat less meat, use less cars, travel less by plane', that's not because of a hatred of meat (slight exception for this one cause I'm sure there are some that do - and while 'use less cars and planes' have 'cut emissions' as their primary/sole reasoning, 'eat less meat' is an argument also made for health/animal welfare reasons), easy transportation or going places. I love eating meat and travelling, and I obviously recognize that cars are really useful.
Now, I think 'less wasteful consumerism' and 'more circular economy' are part of the solution to, if not climate change, then certainly 'the grander problem of environmental collapse' (for example in terms of loss of natural habitat for animals and waste accumulation). If it's shown that those are not related, then 'less consumerism' stops being an independent goal for me. There are very many policies I favor primarily because I believe they help deal with growing environmental problems - there are no policies I favor despite knowing that they will contribute to growing environmental problems.
lol POKER
0
hiems United States. Oct 09 2021 15:28. Posts 2979
Guyz remember he is a social scientist LOLLLLL
I beat Loco!!! [img]https://i.imgur.com/wkwWj2d.png[/img]
On October 09 2021 08:38 Baalim wrote:
Let me explain the point more clearly: The scenario pictured is precisely a random deux-ex-machina where Jeff Bezos tomorrow gets some de-carbonizing towers and returns C02 levels to normal, in that scenario leftoids like yourself would sulk
Even if we entertained the preposterous idea that climate change is a simple problem that could be solved by a technological solution, it would not be the billionaire who invents it
Does that sound like rejoicing or sulking to you? lol
Elon Musk didnt design the rockets or even those cars, what an observation!, you must be in fact a genius unlike that hack right?, who would have known that complex tech of the XXI century requires big multi-disciplinary teams, Elon should have designed the whole thing to the last bolt to get the credit.
Who the fuck is talking about Naval? are you doing the "a Nazi sympathizer also like that tweet" bit again?
You've rejected nuclear energy from the start many years ago before you even had the slightest idea about it because as you just displayed, climate change is nothing but a koyaanisqatsi fantasy for you to justify your ideology, "if only we ushered in socialism we would advert certain doom, there is no other alternative, my political belief is salvation for humanity and the only one!".... clown.
I don't think I've ever witnessed a sharper intellect decline, you still use the same tools but they get duller and duller with time.
Schopenhauer said that this is the worst of all possible worlds, contrasting Leibniz's idea of the best possible world (which Voltaire mocked in "Candide''). He said that we can only imagine a world that is worse than this, but if it became worse in actuality, life would cease to exist. The universe and life being structured ever so precisely so as to allow the cruel show to basically go on forever.
If I would "sulk", it would be in the understanding of this context: the broader picture of what this technology would allow and the power of those who wield it to control other people's lives.
It's like in Orwell's 1984, when the guy gets tortured at the end. It is the absolute worst torture possible, because they are able to read your mind and know your worst fears, and they have the technological/medical capabilities to physically hurt you and keep it going for as long as they want because your body does not break completely. You cannot conceive of a worse nightmare than the worst possible pain that keeps on going forever - something impossible in the state of nature.
Technology is only as good as the social forces behind it and the wisdom of those who wield it.
The author of that tweet has already biased this thought experiment by implying the result that this billionaire overlord is basically a good person, and they would just decarbonize so that our great lives under modern capitalism can keep going (and growing) on forever. Nothing more, nothing less. So yeah, sure, in the fantasy that you present, I would neither rejoice nor sulk, because I am not a fan of the kind of exploitation that goes on in late capitalist society, but I'm also not against a mythical creature -- an altruistic billionaire -- who could solve some of the most complex environmental issues which cause a lot of harm. In this absolutely fantastical scenario, I would have what we call mixed feelings. This is something that adults have. Problem is that it's not presented as a fantastical scenario/thought experiment, it is presented as a political talking point. What if we enter some other variable, say, this billionaire now has half of the world working for him for $1 an hour and everyone is basically forced to only eat Soylent (or its competitors' product) twice a day because they can't afford anything else. Is that world worth living in just because it's carbon zero?
Ironically, you fail to realize that this is something you are concerned with yourself when it is about covid19. You are against the government having the power to mandate vaccines. Replace the decarbonizing tech with the vaccine, and the powerful billionaire with the powerful government. Both are cases of control and power in the hand of a minority of people, but in one case, you're ok with it, and the big baddies who don't believe in the hopium of the free market are the unprincipled ones.
I mentioned Naval because your screenshot comes from his Twitter -- he "liked" the tweet. I mentioned how dumb he is because you are spreading his thoughtless propaganda on here. Duh. Thanks for taking us on another pointless ride with your crap that never leads anywhere and only really serves to antagonize people so you can bait them into having the most surface-level conversations possible about issues that are completely beyond you.
Elon Musk didnt design the rockets or even those cars, what an observation!, you must be in fact a genius unlike that hack right?, who would have known that complex tech of the XXI century requires big multi-disciplinary teams, Elon should have designed the whole thing to the last bolt to get the credit.
You missed the point. You act like there is this simple formula where there are billionaires with the right politics who can get things done right, and the "leftoids"/climate activists who are slowing down progress. Meanwhile you fail to realize that the actual people who would work on these issues do not share the politics of the billionaires, and some of them are obviously climate activists. The actual people who do the work that you want us to rejoice for, you end up silencing, or pretending like they don't exist. You completely remove their agency from the picture. The people who wanted to unionize in SpaceX, for example, are the same kind of people who would build this new decarbonizing tech, not "the billionaire". Your thought experiment just assumes these people would be servants of the almighty billionaire and everything he believes they believe, and it's a nice streamlined process. Just a matter of opposing these cartoon character "climate activists" who are necessarily against advancing nuclear technology somehow.
I don't think I've ever witnessed a sharper intellect decline, you still use the same tools but they get duller and duller with time.
Pot meet kettle. How many books have you read in the last 12 months? Versus, how much time have you spent on Twitter?
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
Last edit: 09/10/2021 17:05
1
Santafairy Korea (South). Oct 09 2021 16:59. Posts 2227
On October 09 2021 08:38 Baalim wrote:
Let me explain the point more clearly: The scenario pictured is precisely a random deux-ex-machina where Jeff Bezos tomorrow gets some de-carbonizing towers and returns C02 levels to normal, in that scenario leftoids like yourself would sulk
Even if we entertained the preposterous idea that climate change is a simple problem that could be solved by a technological solution, it would not be the billionaire who invents it
Does that sound like rejoicing or sulking to you? lol
Elon Musk didnt design the rockets or even those cars, what an observation!, you must be in fact a genius unlike that hack right?, who would have known that complex tech of the XXI century requires big multi-disciplinary teams, Elon should have designed the whole thing to the last bolt to get the credit.
Who the fuck is talking about Naval? are you doing the "a Nazi sympathizer also like that tweet" bit again?
You've rejected nuclear energy from the start many years ago before you even had the slightest idea about it because as you just displayed, climate change is nothing but a koyaanisqatsi fantasy for you to justify your ideology, "if only we ushered in socialism we would advert certain doom, there is no other alternative, my political belief is salvation for humanity and the only one!".... clown.
I don't think I've ever witnessed a sharper intellect decline, you still use the same tools but they get duller and duller with time.
even if you grant the scientific reality of climate change, there is next to zero public discussion or understanding of what can or should be done
anything remotely "green" is simply accepted and worshiped without question
there are three keys to political climate change
1) as long as it can be sold as an immediate an existential threat, those perpetuating the claim are guaranteed political power by credulous adherents
2) economic enrichment - any green sounding snake oil immediately gets money. channeled from capital markets, and also loans and grants taken from the taxes of the working class to be repaid later as debt. hydrogen cars, solar roads, ever hear of the car company Nikola? quite an original name don't you think I wonder where they got it...
^these two go hand in hand because it's the same group of elites taking care of each other, we give you money, you get elected, you give us contracts for reinventing the wheel
3) maintain the above power structure by making no effort to increase public understanding of the issues
and by making no effort to actually go through the calculus
the truth is climate science can barely predict what's going to happen without intervention let alone with intervention. this is simply held up as a kind of original sin to shame the developed western world for being successful
climate advocates and politicians and probably the people in this thread only know 2 things that are dogma
1) climate change comes from "emissions" (this means CO2 and nobody gives a fuck about the science of methane, HFCs, ozone, and so on)
2) and when you turn on the TV the solutions to this grave existential threat all involve punishing the common person - this is why climate change jives with socialism as Baalim pointed out:
-don't eat meat, the production of meat is responsible for carbon emissions
-don't have children in the first world, they will just pollute
-don't put a plastic straw in the plastic lid of your coca cola
-use less electricity
-pay more for energy because we thought it would be a good idea to install solar panels in germany and we had to buy electricity from france
-pay more for energy (electricity and gas) because the US government decided instead of increasing supply and reducing demand and price of oil and gas with energy independence, it would be better to pay competing and hostile nations more for the same thing. after all if prices are higher you'll drive your evil car less right pleb
-hamstring first world economies while the developing world and china can do what they want, and also flood your civilization with fake refugees
-buy a washing machine that uses a little bit less water
it's theater and the US doesn't have the money to waste on this anymore
On October 08 2021 23:47 Baalim wrote:
Found this tweet and agree 100%, as I've said before leftoids dont truly care about global warming, and thats why most of them don't talk about nuclear power, it's simply a tool to spread their political ideology while also feeling more virtuous by trying to "save the world"
I would still be calling a billionaire an anti-environmentalist if they developed some climate tech all by themselves, because of the fact that they could use a large part of their wealth to fund climate efforts. Being a billionaire is a choice to not do nearly as much as they could.
they're also pro-starvation if they aren't using every last penny to fight world hunger, pro-AIDS if they aren't using every last penny to provide drugs and condoms to epidemic countries
On October 08 2021 23:47 Baalim wrote:
Found this tweet and agree 100%, as I've said before leftoids dont truly care about global warming, and thats why most of them don't talk about nuclear power, it's simply a tool to spread their political ideology while also feeling more virtuous by trying to "save the world"
You know that feeling you get when you read those extremely retarded tweets from SJWs/radical feminists or whatever?
That's the equivalent of that for me. This is some of the most obvious extremist propaganda on the other side of the spectrum. You have to be so deep into ideology and denial to fail to realize how ideological it is. What it basically asks us to do is to deny that climate change and its consequences is a social problem. It's instead viewed as a problem of "not enough technology" or not enough faith in rich technocrats to solve problems that far exceed their understanding and resources.
And who is going to decide whose lives are worth sacrificing until you get to your magic invention? Climate change doesn't affect everyone the same way. If your favorite billionaire has a plan to "end climate change" with some science fiction-worthy technology that he claims will arrive in 30 years, how many people's lives are you willing to sacrifice during those 30 years, and from what area of the world? And how many species is it "reasonable" to drive into extinction in the process? Oh right -- the ones that can be sacrificed are the ones that earn them the less money. That is always the answer. So, totally not a social problem, right?
Even if we entertained the preposterous idea that climate change is a simple problem that could be solved by a technological solution, it would not be the billionaire who invents it, obviously. Billionaires are not inventors, they are investors. So they'd invest in some special team of Einsteins who figure out the solution. You think those Einsteins would therefore be ultra-capitalists? It makes no sense. Einstein's socialist politics would not have changed if you had a retard like Naval fund his work.
Ever heard of Naval's argument against UBI? "It can't work because everyone always wants more. It's a slippery slope fallacy but by the way guys it's not a real fallacy".
He also says that specialization is for insects, but argues that if we were smart all human beings would specialize in the hard sciences to move society forward into some kind of post-scarcity society. He doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about. Then he fails to realize he himself is nothing but a specialist at making money - he literally has no talent other than this. A money-making insect. He even looks like one. The guy even admits that "as a kid" he used to bullshit people and make stuff up all the time to try to sound smart, but when the internet came along it became harder to do this so he became more careful lol.
Like a child throwing a tamper tantrum you have already decided that it's not worth listening to what the "big baddies" on the opposite side of the political spectrum are saying about nuclear energy and climate change -- your goal is only to maintain your belief that they don't really care about climate change if they don't believe in your hopium.
to quote Falling Down, "It says all that?"
they don't care about climate change, they care about the multiplying effect the perception of climate change gives to their power. if climate change disappeared, that crutch for power wouldn't be useful anymore.
the fact that a billionaire or entry level researcher could develop a breakthrough technology to tackle this "issue," doesn't logically contain the idea "in the meantime you must do absolutely nothing." like if you do something it will mess up the arrival of the breakthrough technology? you can do both.
if it kills people, and you intentionally did nothing, you would be killing the difference of people that would have survived if you did something.
you also, Loco, are killing people. as long as the world is not doing every possible thing to stop emissions, people will die of climate change who didn't need to die.
we could stop civilization tomorrow, turn off the lights, no fossil fuel ever burned again, and nobody new would die of climate change except those whose tragic deaths already couldn't be stopped. so sad.
I would say don't be daft, but for you that's more of a tall order than your venti from starbucks
lol @ above
people telling you to eat bugs and not have children and not drive a car and so on and so forth. leftists' and climate activists' responses to climate change? that's all well-intentioned, there's certainly no wielding of power to control people's lives wound up in that.
It seems to be not very profitable in the long run to play those kind of hands. - Gus Hansen
even if you grant the scientific reality of climate change, there is next to zero public discussion or understanding of what can or should be done
So you're telling me politics, i.e. political agency is no longer a thing, and most people's lives are so completely dominated by work and entertainment that they don't understand the world they live in? I wonder how we got to this point. If only anyone had ever seen it coming.
people telling you to eat bugs and not have children and not drive a car and so on and so forth. leftists' and climate activists' responses to climate change? that's all well-intentioned, there's certainly no wielding of power to control people's lives wound up in that"
"No Tommy, you should not steal other people's lunches during recess. How would you like it if someone else did it to you?"
"Shut up, you can't control me!! I do what I want, when I want!"
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
Last edit: 09/10/2021 17:14
1
Santafairy Korea (South). Oct 09 2021 20:10. Posts 2227
Anyone have any thoughts on this graph? 65% of Democrats want the government to decide what is true and what is not and to restrict anything they deem to be false even if it limits freedom of info. Are these the same people that spent the last 4 years telling us Trump was going to take us to fascism/authoritarianism? Are you shitting me...
The poll presents a false dichotomy. We could just let journalists decide on what the news is instead of bankers, advertisers, or the government. Same goes for internet influencers, there have been quite a few suggestions on how to overturn things like demonetizing and algorithmically suppressing people because of their political views, that don't involve the government in any way.
I don't think the media went far enough in warning about the dangers of Trump. Last I checked fox news was the most viewed media in the US and they were licking his boots up until jan 6th. The liberal media focused on the wrong issues when it came to Trump, and he was clearly a dangerous demagogue. I didn't actually expect him to go that far. Would it be hyperbolic if someone in 2010 said a presidential candidate would be able to convince a good share of the public that an election was rigged against them? I would've bet against it.
What does there being other options for dealing with misinformation have to do with the fact that 65% of Democrats still want the government to censor and control information to only allow what's "true" to get by. That's absolutely insane.
It has a lot to do with this. For one, both sides of the political spectrum in that poll are either ignoring the alternatives to authoritarianism or just aren't aware of them. That's pretty significant. I do like to shift attention to these issues because I think they are just far more important. The democrats that sincerely haven't thought about democratizing the media could be made aware of this. Why is this absolutely insane?
The insane thing about that poll is republicans claiming to be totally against a government monopoly on the truth while supporting a president that monopolized his own version of the truth and was an even bigger pathological lier than the ones preceding him.
yeah it's insane that republicans are smart enough to support freedom of speech. they correctly realize that a government power once adopted can be used against either side when they're not in power.
trump lying more or less than bush and obama (come on. really? is this george "WMD" bush, barack "close guantanamo, you can keep your doctor" obama we're talking about?) isn't the salient issue, it's that when it came to trump all semblance of objectivity went out the window and the media has lied (because they continue to) CONSTANTLY about EVERYTHING when it comes to him. because he's a threat, not to the world, but to their establishment.
It seems to be not very profitable in the long run to play those kind of hands. - Gus Hansen
1
Stroggoz New Zealand. Oct 10 2021 00:06. Posts 5299
Anyone have any thoughts on this graph? 65% of Democrats want the government to decide what is true and what is not and to restrict anything they deem to be false even if it limits freedom of info. Are these the same people that spent the last 4 years telling us Trump was going to take us to fascism/authoritarianism? Are you shitting me...
The poll presents a false dichotomy. We could just let journalists decide on what the news is instead of bankers, advertisers, or the government. Same goes for internet influencers, there have been quite a few suggestions on how to overturn things like demonetizing and algorithmically suppressing people because of their political views, that don't involve the government in any way.
I don't think the media went far enough in warning about the dangers of Trump. Last I checked fox news was the most viewed media in the US and they were licking his boots up until jan 6th. The liberal media focused on the wrong issues when it came to Trump, and he was clearly a dangerous demagogue. I didn't actually expect him to go that far. Would it be hyperbolic if someone in 2010 said a presidential candidate would be able to convince a good share of the public that an election was rigged against them? I would've bet against it.
What does there being other options for dealing with misinformation have to do with the fact that 65% of Democrats still want the government to censor and control information to only allow what's "true" to get by. That's absolutely insane.
It has a lot to do with this. For one, both sides of the political spectrum in that poll are either ignoring the alternatives to authoritarianism or just aren't aware of them. That's pretty significant. I do like to shift attention to these issues because I think they are just far more important. The democrats that sincerely haven't thought about democratizing the media could be made aware of this. Why is this absolutely insane?
The insane thing about that poll is republicans claiming to be totally against a government monopoly on the truth while supporting a president that monopolized his own version of the truth and was an even bigger pathological lier than the ones preceding him.
yeah it's insane that republicans are smart enough to support freedom of speech. they correctly realize that a government power once adopted can be used against either side when they're not in power.
trump lying more or less than bush and obama (come on. really? is this george "WMD" bush, barack "close guantanamo, you can keep your doctor" obama we're talking about?) isn't the salient issue, it's that when it came to trump all semblance of objectivity went out the window and the media has lied (because they continue to) CONSTANTLY about EVERYTHING when it comes to him. because he's a threat, not to the world, but to their establishment.
Trumps treatment of the bankers wasn't really that different from Bush or Clinton. He essentially set it back to how it was pre 2008 once he got rid of the dodd-frank bill. This was all somewhat predictable because that's where he got a lot of his campaign finance from. Portraying himself as anti-establishment was one of his lies during his four years as presidency. The establishment only broke with him on Jan 6th 2021. Once again I reiterate that Trump got massive media support from Fox news and big tech giants like Peter Theil manipulated the social media in his favor.
Typically people who are actually anti-establishment are people you don't even know exist.
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
Last edit: 10/10/2021 00:09
0
hiems United States. Oct 10 2021 01:43. Posts 2979
If I achieve my destiny of becoming dictator of the world stroggoz would be saved cause I would pardon him for being good at poker.
He'd still be banned from accessing any political literature, websites, etc and I'd make him grind 200nl all day.
I beat Loco!!! [img]https://i.imgur.com/wkwWj2d.png[/img]
1
Stroggoz New Zealand. Oct 10 2021 03:22. Posts 5299
On October 10 2021 00:43 hiems wrote:
If I achieve my destiny of becoming dictator of the world stroggoz would be saved cause I would pardon him for being good at poker.
He'd still be banned from accessing any political literature, websites, etc and I'd make him grind 200nl all day.
How very generous of you.
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
On October 09 2021 11:28 Liquid`Drone wrote:
If Jeff Bezos magically solved climate change tomorrow I'd happily build him a shrine for personal worship, I could perhaps even be on board with sacrificing him my firstborn. The idea that 'leftists don't care about climate change because they're not talking about solution x' is a mindnumbingly stupid take and I have 0 interest in talking with people who try to introduce the topic in such a manner.
Oh I'm not talking about you or anyone remotely within your politilcal realm, I'm talking about people like Loco, the ideologue woke scolds, antifa supporters, people who think their mission is to destroy capitalism.
On October 09 2021 13:52 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Like, when 'the left' argues 'eat less meat, use less cars, travel less by plane', that's not because of a hatred of meat (slight exception for this one cause I'm sure there are some that do - and while 'use less cars and planes' have 'cut emissions' as their primary/sole reasoning, 'eat less meat' is an argument also made for health/animal welfare reasons), easy transportation or going places. I love eating meat and travelling, and I obviously recognize that cars are really useful.
Now, I think 'less wasteful consumerism' and 'more circular economy' are part of the solution to, if not climate change, then certainly 'the grander problem of environmental collapse' (for example in terms of loss of natural habitat for animals and waste accumulation). If it's shown that those are not related, then 'less consumerism' stops being an independent goal for me. There are very many policies I favor primarily because I believe they help deal with growing environmental problems - there are no policies I favor despite knowing that they will contribute to growing environmental problems.
I agree with this, wasteful consumerism hast to be taken over by circular economy, I'm all for free market but not for razing the earth so stupid people can change phone every year.
On things like "eat less meat" its not that I don't agree with the sentiment but I think its shortsighted the same as clean energy, China, India and later on Indonesia, Pakistan etc will industrialize and Norway consuming less meat is absolutely useless when they do, we have to build strategies mainly aimed for that big problem that is coming, that is why I'm so adamant for nuclear or the most cost/efficient energy production, because Norway can afford whatever energy source it wants, its irrelevant to the world, what energy India and China and the rest of the growing big nations use is all that matters.
On October 09 2021 11:28 Liquid`Drone wrote:
If Jeff Bezos magically solved climate change tomorrow I'd happily build him a shrine for personal worship, I could perhaps even be on board with sacrificing him my firstborn. The idea that 'leftists don't care about climate change because they're not talking about solution x' is a mindnumbingly stupid take and I have 0 interest in talking with people who try to introduce the topic in such a manner.
It's not a dumb take at all. If nuclear really was that significant and there was every reason to be confident in it, then the left ignoring it would show that they don't care about climate change. But there just isn't really any reason to beleive that this is the case (to me).
I mostly don't talk much about nuclear because im not an expert on it, I try to follow mainstream scientific opinion on this and the debate doesn't seem very settled to me. Most think nuclear has a niche roll in dealing with carbon emissions from what i've seen. It doesn't make sense to give it so much attention when there are lots of other technological innovations, almost all of which are very accumulative. They don't just arrive in one day but are being constantly improved over time. Batteries and agricultural technology for example.
technological innovation in what... wind powered turbines and solar panels? lol
It is like if we were in the early 20th century and you said that cars don't need that much attention given technological innovation in horse shoes. The technological ceiling for nuclear power is far taller than fucking wind turbines that is 3,000 year old tech for fucks sake.
Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online
0
hiems United States. Oct 10 2021 06:32. Posts 2979
I think eat less meat also impacts stuff like water consumption which idk the leftists do push but I think its def an important thing.
I finally watched a short video on how the Israelis are so water efficient but idk if those techniques apply or not to agriculture to sustain meat industry for xyz years.
I beat Loco!!! [img]https://i.imgur.com/wkwWj2d.png[/img]
1
Stroggoz New Zealand. Oct 10 2021 06:32. Posts 5299
On October 09 2021 11:28 Liquid`Drone wrote:
If Jeff Bezos magically solved climate change tomorrow I'd happily build him a shrine for personal worship, I could perhaps even be on board with sacrificing him my firstborn. The idea that 'leftists don't care about climate change because they're not talking about solution x' is a mindnumbingly stupid take and I have 0 interest in talking with people who try to introduce the topic in such a manner.
It's not a dumb take at all. If nuclear really was that significant and there was every reason to be confident in it, then the left ignoring it would show that they don't care about climate change. But there just isn't really any reason to beleive that this is the case (to me).
I mostly don't talk much about nuclear because im not an expert on it, I try to follow mainstream scientific opinion on this and the debate doesn't seem very settled to me. Most think nuclear has a niche roll in dealing with carbon emissions from what i've seen. It doesn't make sense to give it so much attention when there are lots of other technological innovations, almost all of which are very accumulative. They don't just arrive in one day but are being constantly improved over time. Batteries and agricultural technology for example.
technological innovation in what... wind powered turbines and solar panels? lol
It is like if we were in the early 20th century and you said that cars don't need that much attention given technological innovation in horse shoes. The technological ceiling for nuclear power is far taller than fucking wind turbines that is 3,000 year old tech for fucks sake.
You can google what the International Energy Agency says in their 2019 world outlook report:
"Nuclear power can play an important role in clean energy transitions. Today, it provides
18% of electricity supply in advanced economies, where it is the largest low-carbon
source of electricity. Alongside renewable energy and CCUS technologies, nuclear
power will be needed for clean energy transitions around the world. Nuclear power also
contributes to electricity security as a dispatchable source.
Policy and regulatory decisions remain critical to the fate of reactors, particularly in
advanced economies, where the average age of reactors is 35 years. Lifetime
extensions offer a low-cost source of clean baseload energy, at $40-60 per megawatt-hour (MWh), competitive in most cases with the falling costs of renewables.
At the same time, hurdles to investment in new nuclear projects are daunting, as cost
overruns and delays raise doubts of future development, although advanced nuclear
technologies, such as small modular reactors, could offer new opportunities.
Without investment in lifetime extensions or new projects, operational nuclear capacity
in advanced economies would decline by two-thirds from 2018 to 2040 (Figure 2.8),
with important implications for sustainability and affordability. Achieving the clean
energy transition with less nuclear power is possible but would require more to be
done to reduce emissions in other ways, adding to the difficulty of delivering ambitious
emissions goals. It would also be very likely to cost more: offsetting less nuclear
power with more renewables would raise overall power investment needs by some
$1.6 trillion over the period to 2040, resulting in 5% higher electricity bills for
consumers in advanced economies." p91
"Offshore wind is set to be competitive with fossil fuels within the next decade, as
well as other renewables including solar photovoltaics (PV)." p614
As you can see there is a lot more to be optimistic about wind and solar in terms of efficiency, and technological innovation-it has been fairly accumulative and predictable, kind of like how computer processors were. They basically say that the most efficient way to generate energy from nuclear is to run power plants that have already been built-by 2040 there won't be as many left and they specifically cite the unpredictability of the costs involved in making new ones.
I don't even get why 3000+ year old technology is supposed to be a bad thing? So is housing and there are quite a few attempts at making housing have more efficient insulation-thats also a reasonably significant way of combating climate change. Same goes for irrigation, which Heims is correct to point out-it's very water intensive as meat production uses so much land.
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
Last edit: 10/10/2021 07:15
1
Stroggoz New Zealand. Oct 10 2021 08:10. Posts 5299
On October 09 2021 13:52 Liquid`Drone wrote:
No, it's a really dumb take because it assumes that 'being ignorant of how great of a solution (nuclear) is' is the same as 'not caring about the problem'. It's like saying 'right wingers really love starving children' - while I'll certainly argue that some policies favored by the right wing are likely to increase the amount of children who lack food, I really don't think the motivation behind favoring those policies is that they want to increase the amount of children who are not able to eat. It also turns 'the left' into some type of monolith.
There's enough information out there on the ecological crises that ignorance seems like a choice to me for most people. Imo the better analogy would be just the inverse: "Right wingers don't care about climate change because they ignore solar/wind." In many cases that's true.
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
