4 ms·

I read his comments, you should go and visit some truly bad cities to appreciate why someone might argue against them. His other comments are not relevant to th

I read his comments, you should go and visit some truly bad cities to appreciate why someone might argue against them. His other comments are not relevant to the claim I am making, now that I've read them. On weapons grade plutonium, you are trying to put words into my mouth - I can make my own points thank you. You seem to have some narrative built up of how the world will progress. e.g. pollution and energy use, what China is going to do, what would happen if they don't, what happens if nuclear power is abandoned, how China's economy will develop over the next few decades. And if you don't mind me saying so, you cannot see into the future, you are far too sure of yourself. Coal can be a lot cleaner than it is in China. However that country's disregard for its miners and workers, betrays a certain level of contempt for human life. Do you think that China will operate nuclear reactors as clean and as well as the rest of the world? Nuclear is not clean, clean is a classical propaganda term for nuclear, like pro choice and pro life camps in an American abortion debate. There is no rule that states pollution and energy usage reduce with better economies and technology, not for China, any of the countries you mentioned, not for anywhere. I will de-construct Andi's comment that is so contentious for you: Here is what he wrote: >>You are stuck in a view that energy needs to be cheap and that energy must be available despite the costs of nuclear reactors for nature and future generations. The crucial words here are 'stuck in a view' and 'despite the costs of nuclear reactors for nature and future generations.' It the phrase 'stuck in a view' links this sentence to the following one: >>This is the classical view of people who see technical progress as a kind of god given fact or as the natural direction humanity must take. Here he states that people 'stuck in this view' this 'classical view' see 'technical progress as a kind of god given fact or as the natural direction humanity must take' and this is the crucial link back to the first sentence, because people are stuck in this view 'despite the costs of nuclear reactors for nature and future generations.' 'technical progress' here is dependent on the nuclear reactors of the first sentence. This does not argue against all technical progress, it argues against ignoring the cost to future generations. to be more specific: This does not argue against all technical progress, it argues against ignoring the cost of nuclear reactors for future generations. It's really telling that you berate me for ignoring Andi's comments while I go to look at them, when at the same time saying my claims have no support(in what way - you never said what part is unsupported?) and then informing me that you are probably going to leave the conversation altogether, and ignore my reply to you completely. To reiterate: there is no forced binary choice to be made between living as luddites, and ignoring the cost of nuclear reactors for nature and future generations. Do you disagree with this statement?

berntb 15y ago
>>This does not argue against all technical progress, it argues against ignoring the cost to future generations. Creative way of reading Andi's comment. Congratulations. I can see how someone could formulate a position like that, given that he/she is used to argue with people with certain opinions. The problem, as I noted twice above, is that the other comments shows that Andi is a crazy Luddite which argues against cities. No facts, no references -- lots of claims. (There is a lower environmental impact with half the population in cities than if you spread them out all over the countryside. At leasts without doing a Green Khmer reorg...) Here is a link: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2601330 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2601330 Now I have repeated that point three(?) times. You have acknowledged it without touching it twice. I've given a link. Enough. And yes, it is theoretically possible that the Chinese commit a country-wide economic suicide by not starting to clean up e.g. pollution from coal. But stupidity is not the common sin of the Chinese leaders... (Strip mining and destroying inner Mongolia is another matter.) Or are you claiming it is economically efficient to not clean up and accept health problems for a large part of the work force? Sure, the Chinese leadership is competent and would be cynical enough... That would be interesting -- do you have references?
- eliasmacpherson 15y ago
  Thanks for your reply. I spell out in no uncertain terms how the comment proves what I'm claiming, and you think I'm getting creative? At what point do you think I got creative? How well do you score in reading comprehension? I have a feeling we would get along just fine if we were communicating on the same level, or as native speakers of the same language. Andi's other comments don't show anything of the sort, and are irrelevant, you can point it out as much as you want - you won't get any marks for it. I think you've typecast Andi as a crazy luddite very unfairly. You are putting quite a lot of extra words into his mouth. Andi did not argue against all technical progress, he argues against ignoring the cost of nuclear reactors for future generations. One more time: there is no forced binary choice to be made between living as luddites, and ignoring the cost of nuclear reactors for nature and future generations. Do you agree with this statement or not? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine I can get a lot more references, more recent but that just about sums it up!

berntb 15y ago

>>This does not argue against all technical progress, it argues against ignoring the cost to future generations. Creative way of reading Andi's comment. Congratulations. I can see how someone could formulate a position like that, given that he/she is used to argue with people with certain opinions. The problem, as I noted twice above, is that the other comments shows that Andi is a crazy Luddite which argues against cities. No facts, no references -- lots of claims. (There is a lower environmental impact with half the population in cities than if you spread them out all over the countryside. At leasts without doing a Green Khmer reorg...) Here is a link: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2601330 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2601330 Now I have repeated that point three(?) times. You have acknowledged it without touching it twice. I've given a link. Enough. And yes, it is theoretically possible that the Chinese commit a country-wide economic suicide by not starting to clean up e.g. pollution from coal. But stupidity is not the common sin of the Chinese leaders... (Strip mining and destroying inner Mongolia is another matter.) Or are you claiming it is economically efficient to not clean up and accept health problems for a large part of the work force? Sure, the Chinese leadership is competent and would be cynical enough... That would be interesting -- do you have references?

eliasmacpherson 15y ago
Thanks for your reply. I spell out in no uncertain terms how the comment proves what I'm claiming, and you think I'm getting creative? At what point do you think I got creative? How well do you score in reading comprehension? I have a feeling we would get along just fine if we were communicating on the same level, or as native speakers of the same language. Andi's other comments don't show anything of the sort, and are irrelevant, you can point it out as much as you want - you won't get any marks for it. I think you've typecast Andi as a crazy luddite very unfairly. You are putting quite a lot of extra words into his mouth. Andi did not argue against all technical progress, he argues against ignoring the cost of nuclear reactors for future generations. One more time: there is no forced binary choice to be made between living as luddites, and ignoring the cost of nuclear reactors for nature and future generations. Do you agree with this statement or not? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine I can get a lot more references, more recent but that just about sums it up!