5 ms·

It's more robust than a tent, but not so much as a brick and mortar house. I'm not sure what you want him to call it, but for what it's worth, I certainly didn'

It's more robust than a tent, but not so much as a brick and mortar house. I'm not sure what you want him to call it, but for what it's worth, I certainly didn't read the article like a zealous advocacy piece. It seems to me like this guy is just excited about domes, so I'm curious what background you may have that causes the article to poke your annoyance buttons.

roel_v 9y ago
OK I think reasonable people can disagree on what they take away from this piece. So maybe he meant this as a mere build log, and not to stimulate others to do this for anything but fun. In which case - great. Where I'm coming from (the following is navel gazing, but hey, you asked :) ) is the plethora of people who 'advocate' things that they have only rudimentary experience with, and of which they fail to see the broader context if it were adopted on a larger scale. I especially experience this in 'modern back to nature' movement, but I guess it happens equally in software. For example: - like here, people advocating flimsy alternatives to houses for permanent residence (simplistic car tire or rammed earth houses for example; not the real engineered type, but the 'let me get a few buddies and a crate of beer and I'll build a house over a long weekend' type) because they as a single male engineer with family who owns some land have managed to 'live' (read: sleep and code) in it for a few seasons; - the rocket stove zealot, proposing that people use those for everyday cooking without making it part of their identify or self-worth; - the 'self sufficiency' crowd, thinking they'll go 'live off the land' on half an acre growing some zucchinis and 5 chickens. Or in a log house in Alaska - which they have to build with 50 tonnes excavators and for hunting they need a rifle with a scope for which the lenses need to be cut in a vacuum lab for sufficient clarity; but hey I pulled the trigger so I'm self-sufficient amirite? - part of the 'organic food'/'farmers market' cheerleaders. Look, I buy organic as much as I can; and I love farmers markets. But these are luxuries, they're not part of the solution for a 'sustainable' future. We can't feed that many people on inefficient agricultural techniques. - the 'urban farmers' and related folk. I have a garden in an urban area myself; again, I'm not complaining about the principle. But thinking that this is something that can be upscaled as an alternative to 'traditional' agriculture is just silly; and sometimes dangerous when it takes away from real alternatives. In this category is my favorite idiot: the ones who go to town hall meetings to advocate for planting fruit trees all over town to feed the poor and the homeless. I have yet to meet a single one who has ever tended to a single tree, let alone one who has tackled the many problems with this on the surface great concept. But that doesn't stop them from pushing others to work on their braindead ideas, and thereby harming the efforts of others who have actually workable plans (which are less ambitious and nowhere near as flashy, but at least not doomed to failure). I guess what I'm getting at is that I'm annoyed at people who assume that everybody else is an idiot, and that they're Gods gift to mankind who has come to tell the unwashed masses how to achieve enlightenment (that's not what OP was doing, just talking in general). Instead, have some humility, try to understand why things are the way they are, check if your proposed solution has the same problems others have, and if they don't, show that you've done your homework by pointing out how your solution is better than the others by highlighting them.
- ebcode 9y ago
  I really appreciate this screed. You're opinions here are obviously warranted. I'm wondering, though, do you have any examples of folks who do have "actually workable plans"? It seems to me that you've set a pretty high bar for what those types of plans are, and so I would very much like to know if you can reference any person or group who has met that bar. Thanks.
  - roel_v 9y ago
    I like to think that the bar is actually very low. Like (moderate) people in a neighborhood proposing to maintain more natural-style parks but being held back because a city has to spend much of their time on and needs to CYA against foaming-at-the-mouth environmentalists who will never find anything good enough. Those moderates aren't as invested as the zealots, so they won't push very hard. It's the problem of the silent majority - people who don't really care but wouldn't mind are held back by those the few who are hardcore and don't think small progress is enough right away. As for concrete plans - I've seen so many, but none of them are 'big' enough to really wow anyone. Small scale renaturalization projects being stopped because they don't provide the right habitat for this particular type of frog or whatever it was so now nothing's done at all and the whole coastline is eroding again (no frogs now either!); a pensioners' hobby group who build wild bee housing but the spots where those were supposed to be put wasn't optimal, so they were moved, demotivating everyone so the whole thing stopped. The 'fruit trees in cities' thing, drowning out those who just want something nicer than what there is now, and would be willing to invest some time or money, but not if it means arguing 50-page reports on why this tree over another. In all cases, probably if there had been someone with enough determination some solution could have been found, sure. What the zealots fail to recognize though is that they're only antagonizing those who would be favorable to a moderate version of their ideas, one that wouldn't cause them too much inconvenience.
    - ebcode 9y ago
      These examples you have are insightful, and they remind me of the saying, "the perfect is the enemy of the good." Zealots want the "perfect", and Moderates want the "good." It does seem to me that you are working with a strong bias against environmentalists, though, and maybe it's because you don't consider yourself one? I've been thinking a lot about identity, and how a lot of our interpersonal issues comes down to whether or not we see our fellow humans as "same" or "different". ... and I'm starting to understand that the important thing is to evaluate ideas on their own merits, and pay less and less attention to the individual putting forth the idea. We're already working with a lot of crummy ideas that are in full effect (long dead the individuals having put forth those ideas), and now we have adherents of those ideas roaming about the world quite zealously. But I don't blame the environmentalist for being an extremist. I think they rightly perceive the situation they find themselves in to be an extreme one. I'm glad they get to tell us about it, and happy when they are able to limit humanity's encroachment on a diminishing wilderness.

roel_v 9y ago

OK I think reasonable people can disagree on what they take away from this piece. So maybe he meant this as a mere build log, and not to stimulate others to do this for anything but fun. In which case - great. Where I'm coming from (the following is navel gazing, but hey, you asked :) ) is the plethora of people who 'advocate' things that they have only rudimentary experience with, and of which they fail to see the broader context if it were adopted on a larger scale. I especially experience this in 'modern back to nature' movement, but I guess it happens equally in software. For example: - like here, people advocating flimsy alternatives to houses for permanent residence (simplistic car tire or rammed earth houses for example; not the real engineered type, but the 'let me get a few buddies and a crate of beer and I'll build a house over a long weekend' type) because they as a single male engineer with family who owns some land have managed to 'live' (read: sleep and code) in it for a few seasons; - the rocket stove zealot, proposing that people use those for everyday cooking without making it part of their identify or self-worth; - the 'self sufficiency' crowd, thinking they'll go 'live off the land' on half an acre growing some zucchinis and 5 chickens. Or in a log house in Alaska - which they have to build with 50 tonnes excavators and for hunting they need a rifle with a scope for which the lenses need to be cut in a vacuum lab for sufficient clarity; but hey I pulled the trigger so I'm self-sufficient amirite? - part of the 'organic food'/'farmers market' cheerleaders. Look, I buy organic as much as I can; and I love farmers markets. But these are luxuries, they're not part of the solution for a 'sustainable' future. We can't feed that many people on inefficient agricultural techniques. - the 'urban farmers' and related folk. I have a garden in an urban area myself; again, I'm not complaining about the principle. But thinking that this is something that can be upscaled as an alternative to 'traditional' agriculture is just silly; and sometimes dangerous when it takes away from real alternatives. In this category is my favorite idiot: the ones who go to town hall meetings to advocate for planting fruit trees all over town to feed the poor and the homeless. I have yet to meet a single one who has ever tended to a single tree, let alone one who has tackled the many problems with this on the surface great concept. But that doesn't stop them from pushing others to work on their braindead ideas, and thereby harming the efforts of others who have actually workable plans (which are less ambitious and nowhere near as flashy, but at least not doomed to failure). I guess what I'm getting at is that I'm annoyed at people who assume that everybody else is an idiot, and that they're Gods gift to mankind who has come to tell the unwashed masses how to achieve enlightenment (that's not what OP was doing, just talking in general). Instead, have some humility, try to understand why things are the way they are, check if your proposed solution has the same problems others have, and if they don't, show that you've done your homework by pointing out how your solution is better than the others by highlighting them.

ebcode 9y ago
I really appreciate this screed. You're opinions here are obviously warranted. I'm wondering, though, do you have any examples of folks who do have "actually workable plans"? It seems to me that you've set a pretty high bar for what those types of plans are, and so I would very much like to know if you can reference any person or group who has met that bar. Thanks.
- roel_v 9y ago
  I like to think that the bar is actually very low. Like (moderate) people in a neighborhood proposing to maintain more natural-style parks but being held back because a city has to spend much of their time on and needs to CYA against foaming-at-the-mouth environmentalists who will never find anything good enough. Those moderates aren't as invested as the zealots, so they won't push very hard. It's the problem of the silent majority - people who don't really care but wouldn't mind are held back by those the few who are hardcore and don't think small progress is enough right away. As for concrete plans - I've seen so many, but none of them are 'big' enough to really wow anyone. Small scale renaturalization projects being stopped because they don't provide the right habitat for this particular type of frog or whatever it was so now nothing's done at all and the whole coastline is eroding again (no frogs now either!); a pensioners' hobby group who build wild bee housing but the spots where those were supposed to be put wasn't optimal, so they were moved, demotivating everyone so the whole thing stopped. The 'fruit trees in cities' thing, drowning out those who just want something nicer than what there is now, and would be willing to invest some time or money, but not if it means arguing 50-page reports on why this tree over another. In all cases, probably if there had been someone with enough determination some solution could have been found, sure. What the zealots fail to recognize though is that they're only antagonizing those who would be favorable to a moderate version of their ideas, one that wouldn't cause them too much inconvenience.
  - ebcode 9y ago
    These examples you have are insightful, and they remind me of the saying, "the perfect is the enemy of the good." Zealots want the "perfect", and Moderates want the "good." It does seem to me that you are working with a strong bias against environmentalists, though, and maybe it's because you don't consider yourself one? I've been thinking a lot about identity, and how a lot of our interpersonal issues comes down to whether or not we see our fellow humans as "same" or "different". ... and I'm starting to understand that the important thing is to evaluate ideas on their own merits, and pay less and less attention to the individual putting forth the idea. We're already working with a lot of crummy ideas that are in full effect (long dead the individuals having put forth those ideas), and now we have adherents of those ideas roaming about the world quite zealously. But I don't blame the environmentalist for being an extremist. I think they rightly perceive the situation they find themselves in to be an extreme one. I'm glad they get to tell us about it, and happy when they are able to limit humanity's encroachment on a diminishing wilderness.