Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Jordan
Also agree. It was a good response. And so far as the response was also a reaction to the way I am perceived to be "telling" everyone what they ought to do, I understand the point.
I do not "demand dominance"... though if you insist on using such strong words, you could say I demand compliance... I would say I require compliance, but that's splitting hairs. Anyway, in the spirit of the question, if I did demand dominance (or require compliance), it would only be because I felt there was an overridingly good reason that it needed to be done, such as the preservation of life, or the upholding of a moral code.
I do happen to believe that the environment of this planet is in imminent peril of lasting damage that will be damaging to individual and overall all human life. I also believe that, because reversing these trends will be exceedingly difficult, becoming more difficult the longer we wait, that it is important that everyone do everything they can to start reversing these trends now... or else, we as a race have little chance. This, I'm sure, explains why I feel so strongly about trying to preserve the planet, and why I tend to speak of it in terms of necessity and compliance.
Unfortunately, I see this as a problem that has gone past the level of being solvable if "a few willing people" change, and the majority changes nothing. And any milder wording would only result in the minority acting, the majority doing nothing, and nothing being accomplished.
To tell you the truth: I know this is a fool's errand. The majority will refuse to change, either because they ignore the mild words, or rebel against the harsh words, making the efforts of the minority largely meaningless, until it is too late, and we have no choice. Our government needs to pour every dime they have into alternate energy research, and instead, they waste it guarding an oil-producing nation, while they insist on drilling more domestically. That strategy is going to sink us. But Americans will dutifully wait until their knees are wet before they'll change.
Well, I'm not waiting. I'm saying something now. If the harsh words tick off other people, that's just what will happen. Because I can't convince people to act by saying "pretty please."
To make my point, I provide logical reasoning, for example, my motorcycle story, or any other facts at my disposal... this I have done. I believe in my facts, and I defend them... until someone shows me where my facts are wrong, and I must accept new facts. I make my decisions based on these facts, as opposed to vague emotional positions, as often as possible.
In discussing the environment, I have offered facts, and I have refuted others' statements with more facts. I am willing to hear any facts that contradict mine, and force me to adapt to new facts.
Unfortunately, I can get frustrated in such discussions, because "I want to be left alone" and "you can't talk to me that way" aren't facts. A fact would be a statement like: "I have to idle my truck, because it is a 30 year old truck, and it often won't start, so I can't afford to shut it off, and I don't have the money to replace it."
That's a fact. Nothing I can say will change that fact. Idling discussion is over.
I may use harsh words, but they are not the only thing to my statements... they are only there to get people's attention, to get them to read the facts. And I state again, for the record, that if anyone has better facts, demonstrating why we should not take efforts to conserve, I want to hear them.
However, you don't need to say "I won't do it, because you didn't ask nice." That's a given. Asking nice is pointless. Acting is the only point.
|
Point Of Order -
a belief is not a fact! It is an opinion.
You
believe the ecology is going to pieces, requiring drastic immediate changes. I don't have the same
belief. You undoubtably have facts that buttress your beliefs, as I do mine. Such facts can be discussed and compared, hopefully dispassionately, and might even change one or the other's beliefs, depending on whether the facts drive the beliefs or whether the beliefs drive the facts. But I can't accept changing the world, and causing tremendous damage to billions of lives, over an opinion. I don't have that right, nor do I believe you have that right.
Even if I grant you
beliefs (I don't, but I will accept them for the sake of discussion.), they don't all have the same timeline. Piles of trash will have a longer term degradation effect than, say global warming. It's not everything, all at once. I'll pitch some facts at global warming, as it's the hottest (pun intended) problem currently.
Yep, we're pitching lots of CO2 in the atmosphere. And yes, its a greenhouse gas. These are facts. So are sunspots. Almost nobody talks about them. We're at a what we think is a peak of a peak of a cyclical peak in sunspots. Maybe we are, maybe we aren't. The future is a projection. But study the history of the "little ice age" in the 1600's. There were no sunspots for nearly a hundred years. Coincidence? Sunspots and global mean temperature track pretty well, as least as well as CO2 and temperature. We don't know the causality, just the correlation. Do you include sunspots in your global warming facts?
How long will we be pitching CO2 in the atmosphere, at the current rate? All I see is straight-line projections for at least the next 50 years. I'm sorry, it's not going to happen, with or without command and control intervention. Why? Because the "invisible hand" of economic is going to change it. Personally, I like solar. I like using waste space (my roof) for economic gain. Right now it's too expensive. The price of crystaline silicon has gone from $5 a pound in 2000 to $50 a pound in 2007. Why? Too much demand from solar power and too little supplyof processed silicon. Lots of crystaline silicon plants coming on line in the next year or two. And that's not the CIGS technology trying to come on-line, or Cadmium Telluride that already on line (at half of silicon prices, building a new big plant every six months from the profits of the existing plants...) and a half a dozen technologies in the teething stages that may cut costs 10 fold in the next 10 years. The ramp up for conversion will be starting soon. Now it will take 20 years to complete, all big changeovers do, but the economics will become cost effective in 5 years. then it will be a matter of producing and installing enough product to make the changeover. What will happen to the CO2 curve then?
Now these are
opinions. But my opinions are just as valid as your opinions are. Because of my opinions, based on the facts and evaluations above, I see no need to panic and be overly concerned about global warming. I certainly don't see any need for draconian controls over it. Me, I'm planning to convert when the 20 year amortization shows a profit over the previous 5 year electricity average cost. I'm already saving my pennies. And that's not because I care a fig about global warming, but because I want to save money and get the CO2 whiners off my back! (The more money I save, the more polar bear hunts I can go on...
)