4 ms·

A lot of boomers thinks windmills are against the natural order and will end the world. Also solar parks are just the most ugly thing in the world. They must b

A lot of boomers thinks windmills are against the natural order and will end the world. Also solar parks are just the most ugly thing in the world. They must be banned.

inglor_cz 5mo ago
My experience is that some people (of all generations) react really strongly against anything that involves birth and family. IVF, gamete donation, surrogacy, gay families, various experiments with human embryos or artificial wombs, much or all of this is banned in many countries of the world mostly due to the "ick" factor. The smarter opponents tend to decorate their objections in the "we must be very, very careful" cloak, but if you dig deeper, you will find that it is indeed just a cloak in many cases and that the underlying root cause is "ick, this is against nature", and "really careful" means "erect impossibly high barriers by law". This even isn't subject to polarization and seems to be shared across the political board.
- gkoz 5mo ago
  Could it be all the conservative propaganda that gets people prejudiced against things they're ignorant about and aren't impacted by?
  - inglor_cz 5mo ago
    IDK, but I have read a lot of objections from feminists as well. Where I live, the religious population is under 10 per cent, but complete atheists will argue like this as well. I suspect the "ick" factor is simply inherent here. Kids provoke instinctive protective/emotional reactions in a way that other phenomena don't. For example, it is quite obvious that Trump faces a lot more popular backlash due to his suspected connections with Epstein than over his actual threats to Denmark/Greenland and war with Iran.
    - gkoz 5mo ago
      Non-religious people are also susceptible to the FUD about supposedly or genuinely new things. Whatever innate ick there clearly is, it gets co-opted to demonize much wider ranges of things, and conversely can be suppressed like in the Epstein's circle's case. I don't find it convincing that the legislators passing reactionary prohibitions are just driven by a natural ick rather than particular agenda.
  - deleted 5mo ago
    [deleted]
missingdays 5mo ago
Windmills were invented more than a thousand years ago though
leonidasrup 5mo ago
A lot of younger people think that building of solar power and wind power in the past years caused decrease of global CO2 emissions. In reality, global CO2 emissions have been increasing each year. https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions
- krige 5mo ago
  The per region and per capita graphs do tell something you might want to consider.
  - leonidasrup 5mo ago
    Per region CO2 emissions don't matter, CO2 is a largely non-reactive gas, which is rapidly mixed throughout the entire troposphere in less than a year. https://www.metlink.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/FAQ6_2.pdf https://www.metlink.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/FAQ6_2.pd... It's the total CO2 amount in atmosphere that determines radiative forcing. The IPCC summarized the current scientific consensus about radiative forcing changes as follows: "Human-caused radiative forcing of 2.72 W/m2 in 2019 relative to 1750 has warmed the climate system. This warming is mainly due to increased GHG concentrations, partly reduced by cooling due to increased aerosol concentrations" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing
    - myrmidon 5mo ago
      Regional emissions do matter for the conclusions you draw. All high-income countries already trend down in emissions. Global emissions are rising because poorer countries that were basically almost "no emission"/capita in the past are still catching up (but that catch-up is less steep than in the past because green energy is available from the get-go). Conclusions would be: Emission reductions in rich countries need to be aaccelerated, and helping poor countries peak at a lower level would probably be prudent (but good luck selling such policies to alt-right voters). "Renewable are not helping" is not a sensible conclusion.

A lot of boomers thinks windmills are against the natural order and will end the world. Also solar parks are just the most ugly thing in the world. They must be banned.

inglor_cz 5mo ago

My experience is that some people (of all generations) react really strongly against anything that involves birth and family. IVF, gamete donation, surrogacy, gay families, various experiments with human embryos or artificial wombs, much or all of this is banned in many countries of the world mostly due to the "ick" factor. The smarter opponents tend to decorate their objections in the "we must be very, very careful" cloak, but if you dig deeper, you will find that it is indeed just a cloak in many cases and that the underlying root cause is "ick, this is against nature", and "really careful" means "erect impossibly high barriers by law". This even isn't subject to polarization and seems to be shared across the political board.

gkoz 5mo ago
Could it be all the conservative propaganda that gets people prejudiced against things they're ignorant about and aren't impacted by?
- inglor_cz 5mo ago
  IDK, but I have read a lot of objections from feminists as well. Where I live, the religious population is under 10 per cent, but complete atheists will argue like this as well. I suspect the "ick" factor is simply inherent here. Kids provoke instinctive protective/emotional reactions in a way that other phenomena don't. For example, it is quite obvious that Trump faces a lot more popular backlash due to his suspected connections with Epstein than over his actual threats to Denmark/Greenland and war with Iran.
  - gkoz 5mo ago
    Non-religious people are also susceptible to the FUD about supposedly or genuinely new things. Whatever innate ick there clearly is, it gets co-opted to demonize much wider ranges of things, and conversely can be suppressed like in the Epstein's circle's case. I don't find it convincing that the legislators passing reactionary prohibitions are just driven by a natural ick rather than particular agenda.
- deleted 5mo ago
  [deleted]

missingdays 5mo ago

Windmills were invented more than a thousand years ago though

leonidasrup 5mo ago

A lot of younger people think that building of solar power and wind power in the past years caused decrease of global CO2 emissions. In reality, global CO2 emissions have been increasing each year. https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions

krige 5mo ago
The per region and per capita graphs do tell something you might want to consider.
- leonidasrup 5mo ago
  Per region CO2 emissions don't matter, CO2 is a largely non-reactive gas, which is rapidly mixed throughout the entire troposphere in less than a year. https://www.metlink.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/FAQ6_2.pdf https://www.metlink.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/FAQ6_2.pd... It's the total CO2 amount in atmosphere that determines radiative forcing. The IPCC summarized the current scientific consensus about radiative forcing changes as follows: "Human-caused radiative forcing of 2.72 W/m2 in 2019 relative to 1750 has warmed the climate system. This warming is mainly due to increased GHG concentrations, partly reduced by cooling due to increased aerosol concentrations" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing
  - myrmidon 5mo ago
    Regional emissions do matter for the conclusions you draw. All high-income countries already trend down in emissions. Global emissions are rising because poorer countries that were basically almost "no emission"/capita in the past are still catching up (but that catch-up is less steep than in the past because green energy is available from the get-go). Conclusions would be: Emission reductions in rich countries need to be aaccelerated, and helping poor countries peak at a lower level would probably be prudent (but good luck selling such policies to alt-right voters). "Renewable are not helping" is not a sensible conclusion.