5 ms·

> We live in societies quite tightly controlled by corporations. That's right. No need to cheer on the tightening control though. That is a form of fanaticis

> We live in societies quite tightly controlled by corporations. That's right. No need to cheer on the tightening control though. That is a form of fanaticism - you think you know what is right and everyone ought to do it. One should do things according to one's conscience. But, other opinions are available! Who has the truth to know right from wrong? Is it ok to have a different opinion? You do realise, that even science opinions are purchasable? If you have the money and need scientific support, you will get it. You possibly have a lot of disposable income, are quite young, live in a city, etc. But what of people with different life situations, with 'legacy' heating systems, ovens, etc. Do you want them to be penalised to do 'right thing'? Perhaps they should scrap their old but serviceable car? Pay more for their electricity? Is that progress, or just a trick to get people to pay more?

oblio 2y ago
I'll prefix this to say that I'm currently reading a book that's having quite an impact on me, it's about American psychology, it's called Fantasyland. Its main point is that Americans, due to their founding myths of extreme individualism ("rugged individualism"), freedom above everything and religiosity, are more prone to conspiracy theories. That said... > That's right. No need to cheer on the tightening control though. That is a form of fanaticism - you think you know what is right and everyone ought to do it. One should do things according to one's conscience. But, other opinions are available! Who has the truth to know right from wrong? Is it ok to have a different opinion? It is ok, but not opinions are equal. Not all are equally well founded, not all are equally well reasoned, not all weigh all arguments by their importance and urgency. > You do realise, that even science opinions are purchasable? If you have the money and need scientific support, you will get it. Ok, and this argument is utterly useless and nihilistic. The status quo is anti-climate change. As I said above, a lot of money (and power) in our societies is tied into fossil fuel companies, ICE vehicle manufacturers, etc. Who would be these massive and nebulous "climate change science buyers" and how are they outfoxing and outspending the proven massive "anti climate change science buyers" (companies totaling maybe at least a a third of the global economy!) ? > You possibly have a lot of disposable income, are quite young, live in a city, etc. But what of people with different life situations, with 'legacy' heating systems, ovens, etc. Do you want them to be penalised to do 'right thing'? Perhaps they should scrap their old but serviceable car? Pay more for their electricity? I expect poor people to be grandfathered in (they will be able to use their old stuff until it breaks down) and middle and upper class people to foot the bill for innovating and reducing costs for everyone, since they can most afford it. > Is that progress, or just a trick to get people to pay more? Just like, for example, ICE vehicle manufacturers have been doing at least since COVID? How much more does a comparable ICE vehicle cost compared to 10 years ago? If anything, almost all the techs I listed in my previous comment have a much lower potential floor, i.e. they can be much cheaper than current tech. Electricity produced from renewables can be extremely cheap, especially solar in sunny places. Heat pumps are basic tech we've had for almost a century. EVs should drop in price like a rock once we have the manufacturing ecosystems built out and batteries continue getting cheaper. The main issue is the current price gouging, especially by middle men. A cheap solar panel or cheap-ish heat pump has humongous installation costs, frequently costing more than the equipment itself, which is insane. Anyway, you seem quite conspiracy-minded (please read Fantasyland if you have the time), so I'm going to cut this discussion short. I have read and heard arguments from the other side, and I do understand the pain felt by many, but it's a pain that's generally going remain if we keep mass using fossil fuels PLUS we risk burning our future, completely. The risk just isn't worth it.
- verisimi 2y ago
  > It is ok, but not opinions are equal. Not all are equally well founded, not all are equally well reasoned, not all weigh all arguments by their importance and urgency. I'm happy with the basis of my opinions. I'm happy to express them and argue my side. I don't expect to be able to force my opinions on others. I wouldn't say this, for example: > middle and upper class people to foot the bill for innovating and reducing costs for everyone, since they can most afford it. > Anyway, you seem quite conspiracy-minded (please read Fantasyland if you have the time), so I'm going to cut this discussion short. That's fine. I'll say that these 2 ideas are flawed that a/ you know something to be true because you've been told it is, even though you do not have not personally verified whatever-it-is, leaves you very open to manipulation by whoever has the megaphone you listen to and b/ the idea that the apparent consensus opinion is right and should force it's version of reality on non-believers is immoral - acts of force (wrongs) can not be made right. Each person is given their own mental faculties to with as they like. We each have the opportunity to consider right and wrong, true and false in whatever way we like. One can have personally verified opinions or one can accept consensus opinion, or anything in between. Each of us gets to choose.
  - oblio 2y ago
    > acts of force (wrongs) can not be made right. Absolute freedom doesn't exist either. A government is a legitimate monopoly of violence and I'm all for it. Because I know that the alternatives are much worse (warlords and such). > That's fine. I'll say that these 2 ideas are flawed that a/ you know something to be true because you've been told it is, even though you do not have not personally verified whatever-it-is, leaves you very open to manipulation by whoever has the megaphone you listen to and b/ the idea that the apparent consensus opinion is right and should force it's version of reality on non-believers is immoral. At the end of the day, I cannot verify everything, everywhere, all the time. That's why smart people use the same "web of trust" principle that computer security does, where you trust people close to you and then other less and less. I'm at a point of life where: a) I know I don't know everything b) I know that I'm frequently wrong However I also know that I read 10-100x more than the average person, I interact with people that do the same, I challenge my assumptions periodically (which average people don't do) and whenever possible, I verify things to make sure I'm aligned with reality (which average people do). Most people just don't bother/give up/were never educated to nurture their intellectual side. It's fair to admit this, even though we might be idealists that hope that everyone will wisen up and do this. Some people will always remain dumb (due to lack of privilege or otherwise... at some point it doesn't matter, the end result is the same). So, knowing the little I do know and the lot that I don't know, I'm fairly confident that the best model for our current reality regarding climate is accepting that humans are changing it, probably for the worse. And I'm mature enough to understand we can't persuade 100% of the people, especially in the age of internet and nutjobs being able to congregate and convince themselves that up is down and the sky is red and gravity doesn't exist and the Earth is flat and... So I'm fine with dragging some people along for the ride against their will. Societal progress always works this way, especially since some of those opposed are malicious actors. > I'll say that these 2 ideas are flawed that a/ you know something to be true because you've been told it is, even though you do not have not personally verified whatever-it-is, leaves you very open to manipulation by whoever has the megaphone you listen to and b/ the idea that the apparent consensus opinion is right and should force it's version of reality on non-believers is immoral Guess what, those Big Oil mega corps are forcing their reality on non-believer me every day. I want fewer of their cars, I want more greenery, I want more bikes, I want more ebikes, I want more and better side walks, I want my kids to breathe a clean air. > I don't expect to be able to force my opinions on others. Then nothing will get done. Even the freest of direct democracies never has 100% consensus. Some people buckle up and get taken along for the ride, gritting their teeth.

oblio 2y ago

I'll prefix this to say that I'm currently reading a book that's having quite an impact on me, it's about American psychology, it's called Fantasyland. Its main point is that Americans, due to their founding myths of extreme individualism ("rugged individualism"), freedom above everything and religiosity, are more prone to conspiracy theories. That said... > That's right. No need to cheer on the tightening control though. That is a form of fanaticism - you think you know what is right and everyone ought to do it. One should do things according to one's conscience. But, other opinions are available! Who has the truth to know right from wrong? Is it ok to have a different opinion? It is ok, but not opinions are equal. Not all are equally well founded, not all are equally well reasoned, not all weigh all arguments by their importance and urgency. > You do realise, that even science opinions are purchasable? If you have the money and need scientific support, you will get it. Ok, and this argument is utterly useless and nihilistic. The status quo is anti-climate change. As I said above, a lot of money (and power) in our societies is tied into fossil fuel companies, ICE vehicle manufacturers, etc. Who would be these massive and nebulous "climate change science buyers" and how are they outfoxing and outspending the proven massive "anti climate change science buyers" (companies totaling maybe at least a a third of the global economy!) ? > You possibly have a lot of disposable income, are quite young, live in a city, etc. But what of people with different life situations, with 'legacy' heating systems, ovens, etc. Do you want them to be penalised to do 'right thing'? Perhaps they should scrap their old but serviceable car? Pay more for their electricity? I expect poor people to be grandfathered in (they will be able to use their old stuff until it breaks down) and middle and upper class people to foot the bill for innovating and reducing costs for everyone, since they can most afford it. > Is that progress, or just a trick to get people to pay more? Just like, for example, ICE vehicle manufacturers have been doing at least since COVID? How much more does a comparable ICE vehicle cost compared to 10 years ago? If anything, almost all the techs I listed in my previous comment have a much lower potential floor, i.e. they can be much cheaper than current tech. Electricity produced from renewables can be extremely cheap, especially solar in sunny places. Heat pumps are basic tech we've had for almost a century. EVs should drop in price like a rock once we have the manufacturing ecosystems built out and batteries continue getting cheaper. The main issue is the current price gouging, especially by middle men. A cheap solar panel or cheap-ish heat pump has humongous installation costs, frequently costing more than the equipment itself, which is insane. Anyway, you seem quite conspiracy-minded (please read Fantasyland if you have the time), so I'm going to cut this discussion short. I have read and heard arguments from the other side, and I do understand the pain felt by many, but it's a pain that's generally going remain if we keep mass using fossil fuels PLUS we risk burning our future, completely. The risk just isn't worth it.

verisimi 2y ago
> It is ok, but not opinions are equal. Not all are equally well founded, not all are equally well reasoned, not all weigh all arguments by their importance and urgency. I'm happy with the basis of my opinions. I'm happy to express them and argue my side. I don't expect to be able to force my opinions on others. I wouldn't say this, for example: > middle and upper class people to foot the bill for innovating and reducing costs for everyone, since they can most afford it. > Anyway, you seem quite conspiracy-minded (please read Fantasyland if you have the time), so I'm going to cut this discussion short. That's fine. I'll say that these 2 ideas are flawed that a/ you know something to be true because you've been told it is, even though you do not have not personally verified whatever-it-is, leaves you very open to manipulation by whoever has the megaphone you listen to and b/ the idea that the apparent consensus opinion is right and should force it's version of reality on non-believers is immoral - acts of force (wrongs) can not be made right. Each person is given their own mental faculties to with as they like. We each have the opportunity to consider right and wrong, true and false in whatever way we like. One can have personally verified opinions or one can accept consensus opinion, or anything in between. Each of us gets to choose.
- oblio 2y ago
  > acts of force (wrongs) can not be made right. Absolute freedom doesn't exist either. A government is a legitimate monopoly of violence and I'm all for it. Because I know that the alternatives are much worse (warlords and such). > That's fine. I'll say that these 2 ideas are flawed that a/ you know something to be true because you've been told it is, even though you do not have not personally verified whatever-it-is, leaves you very open to manipulation by whoever has the megaphone you listen to and b/ the idea that the apparent consensus opinion is right and should force it's version of reality on non-believers is immoral. At the end of the day, I cannot verify everything, everywhere, all the time. That's why smart people use the same "web of trust" principle that computer security does, where you trust people close to you and then other less and less. I'm at a point of life where: a) I know I don't know everything b) I know that I'm frequently wrong However I also know that I read 10-100x more than the average person, I interact with people that do the same, I challenge my assumptions periodically (which average people don't do) and whenever possible, I verify things to make sure I'm aligned with reality (which average people do). Most people just don't bother/give up/were never educated to nurture their intellectual side. It's fair to admit this, even though we might be idealists that hope that everyone will wisen up and do this. Some people will always remain dumb (due to lack of privilege or otherwise... at some point it doesn't matter, the end result is the same). So, knowing the little I do know and the lot that I don't know, I'm fairly confident that the best model for our current reality regarding climate is accepting that humans are changing it, probably for the worse. And I'm mature enough to understand we can't persuade 100% of the people, especially in the age of internet and nutjobs being able to congregate and convince themselves that up is down and the sky is red and gravity doesn't exist and the Earth is flat and... So I'm fine with dragging some people along for the ride against their will. Societal progress always works this way, especially since some of those opposed are malicious actors. > I'll say that these 2 ideas are flawed that a/ you know something to be true because you've been told it is, even though you do not have not personally verified whatever-it-is, leaves you very open to manipulation by whoever has the megaphone you listen to and b/ the idea that the apparent consensus opinion is right and should force it's version of reality on non-believers is immoral Guess what, those Big Oil mega corps are forcing their reality on non-believer me every day. I want fewer of their cars, I want more greenery, I want more bikes, I want more ebikes, I want more and better side walks, I want my kids to breathe a clean air. > I don't expect to be able to force my opinions on others. Then nothing will get done. Even the freest of direct democracies never has 100% consensus. Some people buckle up and get taken along for the ride, gritting their teeth.