3 ms·

Us "Rich People" have agency to push entropy aside, using energy as a resource, in a way that people in undeveloped areas do not.

by Neil44 7y ago

jahnu 7y ago
"Rich People"... we are rich. It doesn't warrant scare quotes.
Quarrelsome 7y ago
ye and that agency comes at a global cost. I'm looking at the ankle deep water in Bangladesh. Who is paying for that? Not the 'rich'. How is that anywhere near the human principal of 'fair'?
- Udik 7y ago
  Do you really think that Bangladesh's problem is the "ankle deep water"? Honestly, I think the left has completely lost it. Let me elaborate very briefly: forty years ago, the left would have been concerned with people in the poorest countries living in mud huts, with no food safety, no hospitals in reach, no schooling, no protection from illness and natural disasters. Nowadays- and it's enough to read a left-wing newspaper to realise- the left is only concerned with the marginal increase in misery (supposedly) caused to the poorest by climate change. While in fact the mythical baseline we should bring the world back to is only just slightly better than the current situation, that is, still horrid by any standard. If your problem are the floods in Bangladesh, you'll help them very little by cutting the jet trips of the rich west; what they need are tons of energy and machines to build water management systems, schools to educate a class of engineers and civil servants, factories to build job security, agriculture to build food safety and resilience. All stuff that in fact emits shittons of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. /rant
  - Quarrelsome 7y ago
    Ankle deep water is just a flippant way of referencing rising sea levels. Some families that used to have low-lying farmland now just have a river, raise ducks instead of chickens. Its a visible outcome of the use of fossil fuels. Obviously its not Bangladesh's only nor primary concern. Also, FWIW, I find it exceptionally offensive that you've tried to turn this into some left/right hocus pocus. Global warming, climate change, developing world poverty; these are all issues where the directional political learning does _nothing_ to provide the solutions.
    - Udik 7y ago
      > I find it exceptionally offensive... Not sure what you mean with this. What I was trying to say is that the political side that is traditionally more vocal about the need to improve the condition of the poorest (I think we can agree on this- that's what defines the left anyway) has- in my opinion- lost its way by focusing too much on the climate issue as if it were the source and the solution of all problems. More, I think that the left has actually bent the climate issue (which is at its core a scientific issue, something that transcends any value judgement) to the point of making it coincide exactly with its fundamental ideological framework- which explains why climate change is felt as such a central problem by leftwing/ liberals and leaves rightwing/ conservatives so sceptical. (To give you an example of what I mean with this: you'd expect campaigners for action against climate change to organise big rallies in favour of the construction of hundreds of nuclear plants- or at least for more money into research for cheap and safe nuclear energy. This doesn't happen because the issue of climate change has been shaped into a glove that fits perfectly the ideological framework of the left: less industry, less capitalism, less consumption, more redistribution).
      - Quarrelsome 7y ago
        What I mean is that we were having an interesting discussion about energy meaning agency and how that agency might also have trade-offs and then you were like: > DAE left and right? and its just completely unnecessary. I'm sure you enjoy using that frame to approach issues but appreciate it can have a negative impact on discussion, especially somewhere like here where we all appreciate agency and doing stuff and solving problems. The reason environmentalists who campaign for environmental issues don't campaign for nuclear power is that many of them are also not fans of nuclear energy as they are concerned about nuclear waste. I don't feel like that particular outcome is that surprising given the history of that movement. If you're looking for consistency there maybe they should be more into battery tech to handle green power downtimes?

Us "Rich People" have agency to push entropy aside, using energy as a resource, in a way that people in undeveloped areas do not.

by Neil44 7y ago

Us "Rich People" have agency to push entropy aside, using energy as a resource, in a way that people in undeveloped areas do not.

jahnu 7y ago

"Rich People"... we are rich. It doesn't warrant scare quotes.

Quarrelsome 7y ago

ye and that agency comes at a global cost. I'm looking at the ankle deep water in Bangladesh. Who is paying for that? Not the 'rich'. How is that anywhere near the human principal of 'fair'?

Udik 7y ago
Do you really think that Bangladesh's problem is the "ankle deep water"? Honestly, I think the left has completely lost it. Let me elaborate very briefly: forty years ago, the left would have been concerned with people in the poorest countries living in mud huts, with no food safety, no hospitals in reach, no schooling, no protection from illness and natural disasters. Nowadays- and it's enough to read a left-wing newspaper to realise- the left is only concerned with the marginal increase in misery (supposedly) caused to the poorest by climate change. While in fact the mythical baseline we should bring the world back to is only just slightly better than the current situation, that is, still horrid by any standard. If your problem are the floods in Bangladesh, you'll help them very little by cutting the jet trips of the rich west; what they need are tons of energy and machines to build water management systems, schools to educate a class of engineers and civil servants, factories to build job security, agriculture to build food safety and resilience. All stuff that in fact emits shittons of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. /rant
- Quarrelsome 7y ago
  Ankle deep water is just a flippant way of referencing rising sea levels. Some families that used to have low-lying farmland now just have a river, raise ducks instead of chickens. Its a visible outcome of the use of fossil fuels. Obviously its not Bangladesh's only nor primary concern. Also, FWIW, I find it exceptionally offensive that you've tried to turn this into some left/right hocus pocus. Global warming, climate change, developing world poverty; these are all issues where the directional political learning does _nothing_ to provide the solutions.
  - Udik 7y ago
    > I find it exceptionally offensive... Not sure what you mean with this. What I was trying to say is that the political side that is traditionally more vocal about the need to improve the condition of the poorest (I think we can agree on this- that's what defines the left anyway) has- in my opinion- lost its way by focusing too much on the climate issue as if it were the source and the solution of all problems. More, I think that the left has actually bent the climate issue (which is at its core a scientific issue, something that transcends any value judgement) to the point of making it coincide exactly with its fundamental ideological framework- which explains why climate change is felt as such a central problem by leftwing/ liberals and leaves rightwing/ conservatives so sceptical. (To give you an example of what I mean with this: you'd expect campaigners for action against climate change to organise big rallies in favour of the construction of hundreds of nuclear plants- or at least for more money into research for cheap and safe nuclear energy. This doesn't happen because the issue of climate change has been shaped into a glove that fits perfectly the ideological framework of the left: less industry, less capitalism, less consumption, more redistribution).
    - Quarrelsome 7y ago
      What I mean is that we were having an interesting discussion about energy meaning agency and how that agency might also have trade-offs and then you were like: > DAE left and right? and its just completely unnecessary. I'm sure you enjoy using that frame to approach issues but appreciate it can have a negative impact on discussion, especially somewhere like here where we all appreciate agency and doing stuff and solving problems. The reason environmentalists who campaign for environmental issues don't campaign for nuclear power is that many of them are also not fans of nuclear energy as they are concerned about nuclear waste. I don't feel like that particular outcome is that surprising given the history of that movement. If you're looking for consistency there maybe they should be more into battery tech to handle green power downtimes?