4 ms·

I think this is one of the main division in the US Red Tribe/Blue Tribe division. To Blue Tribe nature is a beautiful park we need to preserve and keep untouch

I think this is one of the main division in the US Red Tribe/Blue Tribe division. To Blue Tribe nature is a beautiful park we need to preserve and keep untouched. Work is done in an office, producing documents. To Red Tribe nature is a source of raw materials to produce food, metals, power, etc. Work is taming and harvesting the resources of nature. Blue Tribe keeps adding wilderness restrictions, which keeps taking away ways for Red Tribe to make a living, increasing rural poverty, and feeding resentment. I hope that makes sense.

b3morales 5y ago
I think this is badly oversimplified and is maybe showing your own bias a bit -- though I'm probably going to struggle to address it without showing mine in turn (and maybe it's just mine reading it in your comment). Your "Blue wilderness restrictions", writ large, are exactly based on a recognition that > nature is a source of raw materials to produce food, metals, power, etc. I think the policy differences arise downstream from that. Questions like, how to handle competing resource needs; how to manage current or future scarcity; and ultimately some disagreement about whether these questions even need to be asked (i.e. is scarcity of X actually a problem?)
- BurningFrog 5y ago
  I see it very differently. The "Blue wilderness restrictions" I think of are banning logging, banning mining, banning new farming, banning dams, etc. The "competing resource needs" are balanced in favor of keeping rural areas pristine, so city people can go hiking there and marvel at the untouched nature. Most people live in cities, so when legislators decide these things, the city people priorities win.
dudul 5y ago
And yet, blue tribe is the one who lives surrounded by metal and concrete while red tribe enjoys wide open spaces. See, caricature goes both ways.

b3morales 5y ago

I think this is badly oversimplified and is maybe showing your own bias a bit -- though I'm probably going to struggle to address it without showing mine in turn (and maybe it's just mine reading it in your comment). Your "Blue wilderness restrictions", writ large, are exactly based on a recognition that > nature is a source of raw materials to produce food, metals, power, etc. I think the policy differences arise downstream from that. Questions like, how to handle competing resource needs; how to manage current or future scarcity; and ultimately some disagreement about whether these questions even need to be asked (i.e. is scarcity of X actually a problem?)

BurningFrog 5y ago
I see it very differently. The "Blue wilderness restrictions" I think of are banning logging, banning mining, banning new farming, banning dams, etc. The "competing resource needs" are balanced in favor of keeping rural areas pristine, so city people can go hiking there and marvel at the untouched nature. Most people live in cities, so when legislators decide these things, the city people priorities win.

dudul 5y ago

And yet, blue tribe is the one who lives surrounded by metal and concrete while red tribe enjoys wide open spaces. See, caricature goes both ways.