5 ms·

I refuse to be united with humanity. And it's not just me. Differences are good, disagreements are good, and diversity is good. Including differences in goals,

by jsn 16y ago

I refuse to be united with humanity. And it's not just me. Differences are good, disagreements are good, and diversity is good. Including differences in goals, values, priorities and everything else. If you have some serious differences and if you want to avoid conflicts, you probably shouldn't keep pushing to unite. You probably should separate. Like, you know, if a family can't agree on some important set of issues, they probably shouldn't always try to find a compromise (which might as well be bad for all sides), or apply force to silence the weakest side. They would probably be much better off if they get divorced, and let each side to form a family with someone who shares their views. I think the same logic applies to countries, and to disagreements about any serious issue -- like, i don't know, taxes, global warming, foreign affairs, gay marriage, controlled substances, etc etc. So, tldr: I'd rather look for something to separate humanity, it tries too hard to get united.

yummyfajitas 16y ago
I generally agree with you, but concerning an issue like global warming specifically, you are wrong. For issues like global warming/pollution, it doesn't help to separate. If the US pollutes less and China picks up the slack, the earth will be just as warm (including the US). Separation is a great solution to some problems, but it doesn't solve the problem of how to pay for global public goods (it deals with local ones nicely, however).
- jsn 16y ago
  There are people who will refuse to care about global warming (or asteroid, or anything else), no matter what arguments you are going to provide. From here, you have to choices: A) suck it up, and B) force them. I refuse to choose B, and I'm going to fight back if anyone chooses B wrt me.
  - bendmorris 16y ago
    As an ecologist, it's always bothered me that because people can't immediately observe the effects of their actions in this regard, they don't assign much importance to them... If the issue was Lex Luthor destroying the western US to make midwest property values go up, would you suck it up, or would you advocate forcing him to stop? The end result here will be just as catastrophic. We can't let people go their own way because they don't "believe" in science. It won't make it any less true.
    - jsn 16y ago
      I really didn't want to reply to that (I think I've made my position perfectly clear already), but then I've got so curious that I just can't hold this question: If you had some Lex Luthor powers, and there were 4 billion people destroying, I don't know, the ozone layer and forests, and refusing to believe in "science", and if your only way to stop them was to use your huge robot army and your giant space lasers as a military force against them -- would you do that?
      - kapilkaisare 16y ago
        Let me recolor that question: If you had some Lex Luthor powers, and there were 4 billion people hell bent on killing you, and the only way you could stop them was to use your huge robot army and your giant space lasers as a military force against them -- would you do that? I suppose the fundamental question here is: to what extent can you exercise your actions of self interest if they mean countering similar actions by others?
        jsn 16y ago
        Yeah, that's an easy one, I feel perfectly okay applying force in response to aggression against what's belongs to me (like my body). And no, the fundamental question is "why would someone think that ozone layer or forests etc belongs to them" (because if it doesn't, they are not in position to decide if it should be kept or destroyed).
        bendmorris 16y ago
        If you absolutely rely on something to live (without an ozone layer or oxygen, you're gone), don't you have a right to defend it? Although I admit, using robots to kill billions of people would give me pause. It's definitely a complex issue. Do you have the right to defend yourself against an indirect attack? Here's another ridiculous scenario to think about - let's say you're diabetic, and some group of thugs is destroying all the world's supply of insulin. It doesn't belong to you, but you definitely need it. What would you do?
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    The point is this - if my locality wishes to criminalize drugs and yours doesn't, we both get what we want. My locality has a bunch of drug users getting raped in prison, yours doesn't. We all get what we want. This doesn't work for a few narrow issues. If you dump oil into your oceans, it floats into my oceans and you are forcing me to deal with polluted waters. If you allow piracy (the "arrr, matey" kind), the pirates rob everyone rather than just people in your locality. In cases like this, force will be used no matter what. There is no getting around it. Look, I'm almost as libertarian as they come. I'm not even making a pro-AGW argument, since I'm unconvinced of AGW myself. I'm just pointing out that you need to fully think through your position - it's a great proposal, but doesn't solve every problem.
    - jsn 16y ago
      Well, if you are a libertarian, you probably know about all kinds of solutions for those issues, as outlined by Rothbard et ol. Do you find them all less realistic than e.g. "unite" plan?
      - yummyfajitas 16y ago
        For some issues they tend to work well. For others they don't. Rothbard was a fantastic intellectual, but he suffered the same problem that many specialists do - he carried a hammer, and thought every problem was a nail. I don't see any plausible mechanism by which spontaneous order will form to address environmental issues. Additionally, it has not tended to occur historically. (Note: I don't even intend that as a harsh criticism. Rothbard's intellectual contributions are fantastic, and his hammer worked quite well for many things. Just not everything.)
  - edfghdfg 16y ago
    Good luck with your new post-terran life. If you could avoid voting until you get there, that would be most appreciated - eventually - by those who plan to stay here.

by jsn 16y ago

yummyfajitas 16y ago

I generally agree with you, but concerning an issue like global warming specifically, you are wrong. For issues like global warming/pollution, it doesn't help to separate. If the US pollutes less and China picks up the slack, the earth will be just as warm (including the US). Separation is a great solution to some problems, but it doesn't solve the problem of how to pay for global public goods (it deals with local ones nicely, however).

jsn 16y ago
There are people who will refuse to care about global warming (or asteroid, or anything else), no matter what arguments you are going to provide. From here, you have to choices: A) suck it up, and B) force them. I refuse to choose B, and I'm going to fight back if anyone chooses B wrt me.
- bendmorris 16y ago
  As an ecologist, it's always bothered me that because people can't immediately observe the effects of their actions in this regard, they don't assign much importance to them... If the issue was Lex Luthor destroying the western US to make midwest property values go up, would you suck it up, or would you advocate forcing him to stop? The end result here will be just as catastrophic. We can't let people go their own way because they don't "believe" in science. It won't make it any less true.
  - jsn 16y ago
    I really didn't want to reply to that (I think I've made my position perfectly clear already), but then I've got so curious that I just can't hold this question: If you had some Lex Luthor powers, and there were 4 billion people destroying, I don't know, the ozone layer and forests, and refusing to believe in "science", and if your only way to stop them was to use your huge robot army and your giant space lasers as a military force against them -- would you do that?
    - kapilkaisare 16y ago
      Let me recolor that question: If you had some Lex Luthor powers, and there were 4 billion people hell bent on killing you, and the only way you could stop them was to use your huge robot army and your giant space lasers as a military force against them -- would you do that? I suppose the fundamental question here is: to what extent can you exercise your actions of self interest if they mean countering similar actions by others?
      - jsn 16y ago
        Yeah, that's an easy one, I feel perfectly okay applying force in response to aggression against what's belongs to me (like my body). And no, the fundamental question is "why would someone think that ozone layer or forests etc belongs to them" (because if it doesn't, they are not in position to decide if it should be kept or destroyed).
        bendmorris 16y ago
        If you absolutely rely on something to live (without an ozone layer or oxygen, you're gone), don't you have a right to defend it? Although I admit, using robots to kill billions of people would give me pause. It's definitely a complex issue. Do you have the right to defend yourself against an indirect attack? Here's another ridiculous scenario to think about - let's say you're diabetic, and some group of thugs is destroying all the world's supply of insulin. It doesn't belong to you, but you definitely need it. What would you do?
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  The point is this - if my locality wishes to criminalize drugs and yours doesn't, we both get what we want. My locality has a bunch of drug users getting raped in prison, yours doesn't. We all get what we want. This doesn't work for a few narrow issues. If you dump oil into your oceans, it floats into my oceans and you are forcing me to deal with polluted waters. If you allow piracy (the "arrr, matey" kind), the pirates rob everyone rather than just people in your locality. In cases like this, force will be used no matter what. There is no getting around it. Look, I'm almost as libertarian as they come. I'm not even making a pro-AGW argument, since I'm unconvinced of AGW myself. I'm just pointing out that you need to fully think through your position - it's a great proposal, but doesn't solve every problem.
  - jsn 16y ago
    Well, if you are a libertarian, you probably know about all kinds of solutions for those issues, as outlined by Rothbard et ol. Do you find them all less realistic than e.g. "unite" plan?
    - yummyfajitas 16y ago
      For some issues they tend to work well. For others they don't. Rothbard was a fantastic intellectual, but he suffered the same problem that many specialists do - he carried a hammer, and thought every problem was a nail. I don't see any plausible mechanism by which spontaneous order will form to address environmental issues. Additionally, it has not tended to occur historically. (Note: I don't even intend that as a harsh criticism. Rothbard's intellectual contributions are fantastic, and his hammer worked quite well for many things. Just not everything.)
- edfghdfg 16y ago
  Good luck with your new post-terran life. If you could avoid voting until you get there, that would be most appreciated - eventually - by those who plan to stay here.