There is then, a more nuanced view, that says, Indeed AGW is real, but what shall we do about it? Many on the environmentalist side, politicians, academics, activists, the rich, appear to advocate a reduction in energy us (for the masses) perhaps banning cars, (for the masses). Or, if pursuing electric vehicles as a replacement for IC engines, never pause to look at the need for large scale mineral mining, lithium etc. We might be able to push graphene to do job, but I cannot say. Mining too shall have its environmental impact, and it too takes energy to mine and process. Fossil fuel powered equipment, as bulldozers are not yet battery or hydrogen powered. https://medium.com/@thinksustainabilityblog/technology-wont-save-us-from-the-climate-emergency-4968190a688f
I, of course, dispute this, and that better energy tech will save us, as this writer and others focus on the "behavioral" side of things. Forget tech, pass laws and regs for the serfs, is this prominent view that gets pushed. My own view (not that it matters) is to go solar, go wind at sea to produce H2, and perhaps look into mini-nukes if they are safe enough and if they are affordable? -----Original Message----- From: Lawrence Crowell <[email protected]> To: Everything List <[email protected]> Sent: Sun, Nov 1, 2020 8:58 am Subject: Re: This is the man who says he found Hunter Biden's laptop On Sunday, November 1, 2020 at 6:15:46 AM UTC-6 PGC wrote: On Sunday, November 1, 2020 at 2:25:34 AM UTC+1 Brent wrote: On 10/31/2020 4:21 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote: For this reason I do not become particularly angry if someone tells me they accept global warming as real science, but think we really do not need to do anything about it. At least that is an opinion honestly expressed. If on the other hand people try to say it is fake-science and all a hoax and so forth, that gets my anger level up. The reason is because it is a lie, and this lie is being expressed to convince other people of it. My general sense of opinions of this form is based on what I see according to empathy and a sense of my connectedness to others. For that reason I have liberal proclivities. For those who dismiss these things and think everything should be economic, well that is an opinion and I can accept that. The reason it is difficult to dismiss global warming is the assumption that science, our descriptions of nature in particular, and culture can be neatly separated. Popular, scientific, specialist, and political discourses are entangled to such a degree that such separations appear artificial and unsuccessful. If you can point towards literature and/or bodies of thought that accomplish such a feat, say in some sociological or political approach, please share. I am not referencing anything in the sociology field. I really do not know a lot about that. I am just making some distinction. If science tells you about impacts and transfer of momentum you might infer that caution is advised in crossing a street with traffic. It is not that Newtonian mechanics proves anything about safety. It would agree that these inferences can be wise or unwise. LC But purely transactional, economic relations are inconsistent with the fact that humans are social animals and live and die by social organization. Brent "No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee." --- John Donne, 1623 Nunc Lento Sonitu Dicunt, Morieris The individual in the Hobbesian view relates that one individual wants what another has, with both in a territorial dispute over the same things, justifying the competition to pursue their selfish ends to establish rights to property, nature, and social dominance. With Rousseau, the state of nature is a powerful fiction that arises out of what Marx called "political economy". Jean Starobinski on Rousseau posits one individual in this scene: the self-sufficient, without dependency, saturated in self-love yet without any need for another. Marx attacked this part of the state of nature hypothesis that establishes the individual as primary; in Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 he employs Robinson Crusoe irony of placing ourselves in a "fictive primordial state like a political economist trying to clarify things... We proceed from a present fact of political economy". Conceptions of the individual can be fruitfully questioned as to what can or cannot be imagined. The subject would make a nice book; particularly trying to compare and contrast these conceptions from antique to present with the conceptions that authoritarians imply, and weighing the evidence that such conceptions are a mere inconsistent propagandistic-opportunistic prop, or whether something more stable is emerging in the world of information age discourse in the wake of our most recent streak of electing supposedly strong men. PGC -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d6741940-4342-4c35-b361-94b8057bde28n%40googlegroups.com. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1522466627.1055307.1604243812456%40mail.yahoo.com.
