Blatantly political rant

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

It seems it's become downright impossible to discuss any subject in America, if part of the premise of that subject is that people should do something that they are not doing, or stop doing something that they have been doing.

<...>

And if you disagree with this assessment, how do you explain the fact that Americans are expressly warned not to discuss religion and politics in sensitive forums? How is it that intelligent, passionate people on this site have not been able to work out solutions to things that concern them, like copyright issues, without coming to verbal blows?

I'm a systems administrator, and in forums devoted to Unix and lookalikes like Linux, you get Holy Wars like whether vi or emacs is the One True Editor, with the same sort of "coming to verbal blows" you mention. They are called religious arguments, and they are in a very real sense.

A variety of different opinions are religious in nature. They aren't about religion per se, but they tend to live in the same place. Religious belief is held on a gut level, not a rational one, and a variety of other beliefs can be as well.

The late psychiatrist Eric Berne talked about the Position. The Position is a sort of unconscious, existential statement of "This is who I am, and this is how I fit into the world." Positions are learned by osmosis, and tend to be set in broad outline in early childhood. The become part of a person's "sense of self".

The key point is that once we have adopted a Position, our primary goal is to defend it. We happily clutch to our chest evidence that supports it, and ignore or discard evidence to the contrary. Questions of our Position can provoke extreme and even violent reactions, because they will be seen not only as attacks on our beliefs but on our selves.

Religious expression and political viewpoints tend to stem from Positions. We adopt those that complement what we believe and how we feel, and cherry pick as needed to get things to come out as we desire. Do you think the religious types who rail against homosexuality do so because their religion says it's wrong? I don't. I think they are starting from a point of hatred, fear, and loathing, and quoting scripture to justify what they already feel. If it requires rather selective quoting, and taking stuff out of context, no matter.

Politics work similarly. You hold political opinions based on who you think you are and what your position in society is. You buy into rhetoric that supports your belief, and reject that which doesn't.

In that sort of discussion, I tend to be less interested in exactly what folks believe, and far more in why they hold the belief. What is attractive about it? Why do they want to believe that?

I try not to invest too much emotional capital in discussions like this. I have opinions as well, but I try to have rationality serve as a balance to belief.

Meanwhile, no surprise that some statements can stir up a hornet's nest, since they can be interpreted emotionally as "You're telling me I'm a Bad Person because I don't do things the way you think I should! Who are you to say that?"
______
Dennis

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by pshrynk

Steve and Ralph: I challenge the two of you to present the other's point of view in open forum and keep refining it until the other has been able to say, "Yess, that is what I am saying." If you do that and find that you need to fight, then have at it, fully understanding the opposition's point of view. You will find such an exercise to be informative. You can flip a coin to see who goes first.

I'll go one better. Take a cue from debate competitions. Ask each to present, promote, and defend the other's viewpoint. Of course, that will require them to adequately define just what their viewpoint is, so it can be defended by the other...
______
Dennis

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by vivaldirules

I think that describes it exceptionally well. Let me suggest a few thoughts to make it clear from the other (world-savers') view, of which I lean more towards. I understand and appreciate the desire to be left alone particularly when others have shown their incompetence at fixing things. No argument. But the people who are agitating to get things changed see those in the leave-me-alone camp as crucial to solving problems - unwilling to make, or even consider making, changes that might be positive for us all. If people aren't willing even to consider change, then we're stuck in the same situation until it all craps out (if it does). Pick your topic of change - it doesn't matter. Want to talk about energy, carbon, and the environment? I see the people who just want to keep their 2000+ square foot homes in the suburbs with their green lawns that they water from precious water from the aquifer and consuming gasoline to commute in their vehicles to town as a large immovable mass that just wants to be left alone. I appreciate that but if doesn't move, we could be in really deep doo-doo if any of this is real. I consider the possibility that they're real to be finite and if the consequences are at all large, we're toast pretty soon unless all of us, including the immovable object, shifts. Hey, it's war time, as far as I'm concerned. We need people to sign up and soon.

May I counter some misperceptions. We leave-us-alone types are quite capable of embracing change. But we do it on our terms. Not on somebody else's terms. Show us the advantage of change, and we'll jump on it. But is has to be an advantage.

I personally don't buy the "we'll all be toast soon" theory. Believe me, I have looked at an enormous sheaf of data, and I don't find it matches the hype. Just one example, peak oil. Probably true. But in 10 years I'll be able to get all my energy needs off my suburban rooftop, cheaper than what I'm paying today. Painful to get from here to there? Yes, but it would have been less painful if the "we'll all be toast soon" types had allowed energy exploration in currently politically forbidden areas 6-7 years ago. It'd be coming on line now.

By the by, what would you do with all the abandoned 2000+ sq ft homes in your doomsday scenario?

Finally, the "positive for all of us" line has been used so much in the last 50 years that most of leave-us-alone types start reaching for our ankles....(Somehow we're never in the us.....)

[pshrynk]

Originally Posted by vivaldirules

I'm a 4th generation native Texan but I've usually thought little of it. On the one hand, I'm a leave me alone "Oh, my god, can you believe what those idiots have done again?" independent Texan. People make lousy decisions so stay away from me. I'm also an "Oh, my god, look what's coming right at us! Let's move!" Texan who's wants to step to the front of the line to fight for what's right. My guess is that we'll all still be having these kinds of arguments as the boat finally sinks.

Or powers up and sails beyond the sunset. I always try to maintain that thought that there is hope and ability that we do not understand.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

I'll go one better. Take a cue from debate competitions. Ask each to present, promote, and defend the other's viewpoint. Of course, that will require them to adequately define just what their viewpoint is, so it can be defended by the other...
______
Dennis

I did that once. I had to defend slavery. My team won (if you can call it that) but it turned my stomach...

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

May I counter some misperceptions. We leave-us-alone types are quite capable of embracing change. But we do it on our terms. Not on somebody else's terms. Show us the advantage of change, and we'll jump on it. But is has to be an advantage.

I personally don't buy the "we'll all be toast soon" theory. Believe me, I have looked at an enormous sheaf of data, and I don't find it matches the hype. Just one example, peak oil. Probably true. But in 10 years I'll be able to get all my energy needs off my suburban rooftop, cheaper than what I'm paying today.

Yes and no. Suburban rooftop implies solar power, and specifically photovoltaic conversion. Solar power for things like heating and cooling has been around for a while. It most sensible for hot water heating, as that's up to 20% of the average energy bill, and there is a relatively fast payback on the investment.

Photovoltaics are quite another matter. They've seen limited deployment because of cost.

And even if you can get all of your energy requirements that way, that doesn't end the requirement for fossil fuel. The last I looked, electricity was about 25% of the total national energy budget. (The rest went to residential and light commercial heating and cooling, industrial usage, and transportation -- all things that likely aren't feasible to use electricity instead.)

Ultimately, economics will prevail. We won't run out of oil. It will simply become more expensive than other alternatives, and we'll switch to something cheaper. Alternative energy has had only niche penetration thus far because it usually is more expensive than using oil, coal, or gas.
______
Dennis

[pshrynk]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

Yes and no. Suburban rooftop implies solar power, and specifically photovoltaic conversion. Solar power for things like heating and cooling has been around for a while. It most sensible for hot water heating, as that's up to 20% of the average energy bill, and there is a relatively fast payback on the investment.

Photovoltaics are quite another matter. They've seen limited deployment because of cost.

And even if you can get all of your energy requirements that way, that doesn't end the requirement for fossil fuel. The last I looked, electricity was about 25% of the total national energy budget. (The rest went to residential and light commercial heating and cooling, industrial usage, and transportation -- all things that likely aren't feasible to use electricity instead.)

Ultimately, economics will prevail. We won't run out of oil. It will simply become more expensive than other alternatives, and we'll switch to something cheaper. Alternative energy has had only niche penetration thus far because it usually is more expensive than using oil, coal, or gas.
______
Dennis

I'm not sure if this is in every state, but many states allow the energy companies to buy back electricity if you have photovoltaics that exceed your usage, so you can actually run a negative bill if you have enough capacity. That takes quite a load of photovoltaics, but those thingies that Ralph showed us might end up being just the thing.

And T Boone has a great idea, as well. Wind energy to replace natgas generation and use natgas to cut improt dependence.

There are lots of things that are coming along or waiting in the wings that will eventually be cheaper than oil.

Oil was one of the drivers of the tech boom that makes it possible to go back to renewable without going back to the dark ages. We just have to have the sense to go for it.

Here's where I'm a hybrid: Let's develop stuff and see what happens and make new things. We should agree to change what we're doing because it's leading to a bad place. But ferghodsake, let's open up the gates and let things go forward. Hold back becasue there might be an environmental problem? How about just keeping an eye out for environmental problems as we're froging ahead. We've learned a lot about monitoring in the past century. Let's use it and progress, rather than holding back.

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

On a case-by-case basis. But you have to show the impact...

(The old saw - The right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins, and vice versa...)

I concur this gets stickier with the force multiplier of technology, but it's still a measurable basis.

Hey .... that's sort of why the lawsuit I'm fighting right now is all about. I happen to think that having 20 cats is fine and dandy as long as they are all in good health, the house is mostly clean, and the cats don't bother the neighbors.

The asshole on the other side is in the camp that, anyone with 20 cats must be evil and driven out of town, and that his right to determine what I do extends into my four walls ... no matter what.

I would just love it if someone would require him to actually show what "impact" my animals have on his life or that of anyone within 20 miles of this house.

And, I apologize that my post is not on the topic of alternate energy ... but I am working on a way to power a car engine with cat poop.

[Donnageddon]

Yes, but it would have been less painful if the "we'll all be toast soon" types had allowed energy exploration in currently politically forbidden areas 6-7 years ago. It'd be coming on line now.

Actually it is just another sign of the "leave me alone" types being manipulated. The Oil companies currently have 68 million acres (proven reserves) leased to them for drilling. But they haven't drilled there because they make far too much money by keeping oil prices high. Plus they can use the current artificial market not just to make obscene profits, but to change the agenda to getting even more land leases, which they will again just sit on, and use only what they need to maximize profits.

Their current excuse for not drilling on the leased land they have is that it "costs too much, not enough equipment, etc", while hoping everyone ignores those record breaking profits.

The best we can hope for from these market (and opinion) manipulations, is that it awakens people to getting those alternative, renewable energy sources closer to reality. That would surely piss of the Oil companies, and screw up their agendas.

But as long as people ignore what is right in front of them, they will continue to be "left alone" right up until they have no where left to turn.

Given the areas in the south's dependence on energy to keep them from turning to toast, and their natural geographic advantage for making solar energy into a new 21 century industry for them, I am amused by their reluctance to accept that reality.

I certainly don't expect this argument to change any "leave me aloners" minds, but, what can you do? As has been pointed out, it is probably all due to poor upbringing.

[slayda]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

...
The late psychiatrist Eric Berne talked about the Position. The Position is a sort of unconscious, existential statement of "This is who I am, and this is how I fit into the world." Positions are learned by osmosis, and tend to be set in broad outline in early childhood. The become part of a person's "sense of self".

The key point is that once we have adopted a Position, our primary goal is to defend it. We happily clutch to our chest evidence that supports it, and ignore or discard evidence to the contrary. Questions of our Position can provoke extreme and even violent reactions, because they will be seen not only as attacks on our beliefs but on our selves.

Religious expression and political viewpoints tend to stem from Positions. We adopt those that complement what we believe and how we feel, and cherry pick as needed to get things to come out as we desire. Do you think the religious types who rail against homosexuality do so because their religion says it's wrong? I don't. I think they are starting from a point of hatred, fear, and loathing, and quoting scripture to justify what they already feel. If it requires rather selective quoting, and taking stuff out of context, no matter.

...
Dennis

There is a book by James P. Hogan - "Kicking the Sacred Cow" (available at www.baen.com) that some here may find interesting. It relates to the comment above by DMcCunney. It is not a "story book" in that it doesn't present a plot with fictitious characters. It could be considered a factual book or a presentation of Hogan's opinions but it does present some interesting "facts" that relate to religiously held scientific beliefs. I highly recommend it.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by pshrynk

I'm not sure if this is in every state, but many states allow the energy companies to buy back electricity if you have photovoltaics that exceed your usage, so you can actually run a negative bill if you have enough capacity.

Which most electric utilities will be happy to do. Anything that reduces their need to build new generating capacity...

That takes quite a load of photovoltaics, but those thingies that Ralph showed us might end up being just the thing.

It will, and the issue is the cost. There were proposals back when to use government funding to subsidize photo-voltaic production. Photovoltaics are like any other semi-conductor device: they are capital intensive, and the biggest cost is the financing to build the factory that can make it. The more you make, the wider you can spread the overhead, and the cheaper you can price the product.

And T Boone has a great idea, as well. Wind energy to replace natgas generation and use natgas to cut improt dependence.

Assuming you have a good place to put a wind farm.

And wind farms will reduce the usage of using natural gas to power electrical generating facilities.

There are lots of things that are coming along or waiting in the wings that will eventually be cheaper than oil.

That's been true for years. The hangup has always been that using oil was cheaper.

Oil was one of the drivers of the tech boom that makes it possible to go back to renewable without going back to the dark ages. We just have to have the sense to go for it.

Here's where I'm a hybrid: Let's develop stuff and see what happens and make new things. We should agree to change what we're doing because it's leading to a bad place. But ferghodsake, let's open up the gates and let things go forward. Hold back becasue there might be an environmental problem? How about just keeping an eye out for environmental problems as we're froging ahead. We've learned a lot about monitoring in the past century. Let's use it and progress, rather than holding back.

I'll concur.

The big environmental problems may not be so easily monitored. Nancy Pelosi is curerntly shooting back at President Bush, since she was the one principally responsible for blocking offshore drilling off the California coast. she points to things like the Exxon Valdez incident as reasons why offshore drilling and the California coast can't co-exist.

Environmental monitoring can't handle the case of a super tanker having an accident.
______
Dennis

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Donnageddon

Actually it is just another sign of the "leave me alone" types being manipulated. The Oil companies currently have 68 million acres (proven reserves) leased to them for drilling. But they haven't drilled there because they make far too much money by keeping oil prices high. Plus they can use the current artificial market not just to make obscene profits, but to change the agenda to getting even more land leases, which they will again just sit on, and use only what they need to maximize profits.

Their current excuse for not drilling on the leased land they have is that it "costs too much, not enough equipment, etc", while hoping everyone ignores those record breaking profits.

The best we can hope for from these market (and opinion) manipulations, is that it awakens people to getting those alternative, renewable energy sources closer to reality. That would surely piss of the Oil companies, and screw up their agendas.

But as long as people ignore what is right in front of them, they will continue to be "left alone" right up until they have no where left to turn.

Given the areas in the south's dependence on energy to keep them from turning to toast, and their natural geographic advantage for making solar energy into a new 21 century industry for them, I am amused by their reluctance to accept that reality.

I certainly don't expect this argument to change any "leave me aloners" minds, but, what can you do? As has been pointed out, it is probably all due to poor upbringing.

That's right, my pappy teached me to shoot straight, bathe twice a week, and never vote for a city slicker... And I'm bitter, too....

Have you ever consider the engineering feat it is to drill 3 miles down, with curves in the path? And from 1985 to 2000, you couldn't catch a cold, much less get a job as a petroleum engineer. Suddenly there's 10 time the need for P.E.'s than there are P.E.s. Over half the drilling rigs in the '70's were melted as scrap by the 90's. (And almost all the banks in Texas were allowed to go broke....funny, that never happened to New York banks, no matter how many bad loans they have...)

[jamesdmanley]

not another bitter bible clinger!! hope your children can speak spanish!

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by jamesdmanley

not another bitter bible clinger!! hope your children can speak spanish!

?Que pasa, vato? ... Can yours speak Hindi?

[desertgrandma]

When I leave the house and go to lunch at Red Lobster. I come back and you people have filled 4 pages and I have to read them and now I have a headache. Sheesh.