iNow

Is this supposed to be a blog? There no discussion here

Define what you mean by “significantly increased rate” then do the math based on likelihood of genetic mutations

It’s hard answering hypothetical questions. It sort of depends on how they achieved those zero emissions. Where are the carbon and related pollutants going? Into the ground near food crops? Into the water system in Flint, Michigan? Into the tuna surprise served in the caterer is at a local elementary school? The details of this “zero emission scheme” clearly matter, but no. I wouldn’t reject it outright nor for ideological reasons (at least not consciously or with awareness that’s what I was doing). Since in our current reality today we’re nowhere even remotely in the vicinity of zero emissions, yes. I do think the onus is on the government to make fossil fuels less attractive and to reward folks who use clean energy sources. It’s the only way to address this problem at the scale required. Absent that, most solutions reliant on individual choice are akin to pissing in the ocean.

I commented on the massive investment made to speed development and address the need on a timeline the free market could not. My comment was accurate. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2020/08/08/feds-spending-more-than-9-billion-covid-19-vaccine-candidates/5575206002/ One can be opposed to this for ideological reasons, but we know it works, we know it helps, and we know it could also benefit humanity overall in context of climate cancer solution development and deployment. I don’t have to imagine it. It’s already happening right now as I post this, and this process is just a larger example of the free market principles you appear to advocate. The government is the customer, so according to you the richest countries really should get all of the vaccines at the expense of making them unavailable to residents of less wealthy nations. I don’t mean to drag us off-topic on to vaccine distribution. It was meant only as a comparison to suggest our principles about markets seem malleable and context dependent. We should sometimes consider adjusting them based on the scale of the problem. Climate change dwarfs all other problems in terms of scale.

So, government has subsidized fossil fuels for decades. They continue subsiding them today, but you’re suggesting that in order for green energy to take hold moving forward and help humanity ward off the rapidly growing problem of global climate disaster that NOW is the time to stand firm on the principle free markets and small government? Sounds rather like our chats on reparations and overcoming centuries of systemic white privilege, but that’s off-topic.

Summarized: The government needs to subsidize green energy for the same reason it subsidized covid vaccine developments. Not a perfect analogy, the the overlap is significant (even though on a different time scale).

In my mind. I’ve already addressed this with comments on public health. How much say the government has is where the conversation can be interesting, but suggesting it’s a binary yes/no all-or-nothing doesn’t allow progress.

I’m reminded of the outcry about how the economy would be damaged by replacing horse drawn carriages with cars

Our problem on this issue in the US isn’t so much with the president. It’s with the Congress. But it is what happens in the US which has subsidized fossil fuels for decades, and still does so today. I appreciate your central point regarding limited government intervention in the markets, but believe this particular issue of climate cancer / voluntary increases in drought, flooding, famine / avoidable extinction events, etc. is much better framed under the umbrella of public health, a remit very much within the appropriate control of legislation and enforcement.

What’s funny is that neither of our last 2 posts are

Not this time, no If Americans wanted “nice,” then surely 74 million votes wouldn’t have gone to give Trump a 2nd term

It is because they support policies, programs, and approaches that are also supported by the majority of Americans. And also those other things you said (except that bullshit about being nice... lol)

You may have a point, but I at least cited a source for my claim and instead of challenging any specific claims my source made or showing flaws in their methodology, you just dismissed the NYTimes whole cloth. You also didn’t bother to find data in support of your opposition, so I did it for you (though it’s hardly as convincing as you suggest, and obviously differs from one issue to the next and by age group): https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2017/10/05/1-partisan-divides-over-political-values-widen/

But as the Overton window shows, the entire spectrum is often displaced rightward or leftward, so the “center” is itself relative. Also... The US has been shifting rightward overall these last several decades. Said another way, the left is already closer to the center than the right yet that’s where you focus your criticisms... on the ones already doing what you’re advocating while ignoring those doing the exact opposite. This one example from a study done just last year: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/26/opinion/sunday/republican-platform-far-right.html Or, as PT Barnum and basic psychology shows, when you repeat a lie often enough people believe it more.

I suggest some of the other changes I recommended in a previous post are prerequisite to giving a 3rd party a chance, hence my focus there.

Summarized: Yes, everyone should be nicer and more honest. No, that’s not going to happen or change votes if it did. Any other fun political fictions we should spend pages upon pages exploring further?

I’m not a huge fan of this idea and would prefer we focus on more obvious things like making voting a national holiday, implementing ranked choice, adding polling places to more densely populated regions, making early voting the rule everywhere, and other similar ideas discussed here many times in the past. I also see a risk of resentment and making problems worse if some people’s vote counts more than others. Money already does this and we need to fix that too, but fixing the problem of voter suppression to me is more important than double counting those not prevented from voting due to that suppression. +1 for introducing me to a new idea I’d not preciously encountered tho!

The issue is gerrymandering. It’s nearly impossible for republicans to lose given the expert precision with which they’ve redrawn voting districts to stack voters together and crack challengers apart. This is the far more parsimonious explanation for what we see than your frequently introduced “blame the left at every chance” hypothesis paraphrased as, “the right-wing media ecosystem would stop endlessly attacking and lying about democrats if only those mean ole dems were slightly nicer when they spoke.”

Sometimes the primary audience is not the person posting obstinately and openly, but is instead other persons reading quietly from the sidelines trying to sort through their own doubts.

I struggle sometimes with my refusal to give up on the humanity of others; to abandon hope that the right combination of the right words will somehow resonate or break through. In the end, it too frequently becomes a mild form of masochism. I also struggle sometimes... nay, often! ... with my patience, something I’ve long since lost with this thread, but not necessarily with this poster.

I have faith in the fact that everyone here has had more than enough of this silliness

In case anyone can benefit from this... A medium low cut glaze / polishing compound did wonders. I used Meguiars 205 with a microfiber pad stuck on to my random orbital sander on medium speed and it really came out well I put it on and wiped it about 5x total

So, of earth

The assertion that some magic cloud surfer who cares whether you masturbate or eat burgers on Fridays created the entire universe is an extraordinary claim. It consequently requires extraordinary evidence to support it, especially since it’s not required to explain what we see. Saying “goddidit” offers no value or explanatory power whatsoever Since eyewitness testimony is barely good enough in the courts to convict criminals of petty crimes, why do you believe it should good enough for science to accept the god hypothesis as true? Do you allow eye witness testimony to change your mind when others use it to defend their gods, gods which are different from yours? If I shared eye witness testimony that I saw the Flying Spaghetti Monster, surely you’re smart enough to realize my claim is likely false. Some of us just go one god farther and include yours in that set.