4 ms·
Yes, they block nuclear even though it has minimal / no impact on the landscape compared to the alternatives. This is inconsistent with Smith's explanation. No
by nvm0n2 3y ago
Yes, they block nuclear even though it has minimal / no impact on the landscape compared to the alternatives. This is inconsistent with Smith's explanation.
Noah Smith publicly advertises himself as being on the left, so of course in these groups he sees the spectre of conservatism. They refuse to build solar farms because they just can't stop conserving things!
But there's an alternative hypothesis that also explains the nuclear problem: these are people whose personalities cannot abide tradeoffs of any kind. They are utopian progressives who believe that if a proposal has any downsides at all, then they should protest and block under the assumption that faced with resistance the smart set will come up with a better proposal. Claims that there are no alternatives are rejected on the grounds that capital-P Progress is automatic and easy, so if anyone is stating that you have to choose between birds/tortoises and climate, then they just need to try harder to find a solution that makes everyone happy.
- Tao3300 3y agoYour alternative hypothesis is itself conservatism. Blocking change is to support the endurance of the status quo. They may not think it is by their ideals, but do it enough times and the actions speak.
- nvm0n2 3y agoPerhaps, yes. At some point it becomes an argument over words: is it conservative if you're so radical no proposal is considered good enough, so you default to rejecting everything? Is there even such a thing as radical conservatism or is that a contradiction?
- Tao3300 3y agoI wouldn't say exactly that, rather that a refusal to compromise ultimately results in choosing the status quo, and is therefore an effectively conservative choice. The words all mean the same things, it's the choices that are contradictory.