quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I haven't actually seen anything about washing reusable bags, could you point me in the direction of something on that? My guess would be that reusable bags still come out way ahead because the water and energy that goes into making plastic bags is so extreme and they're used in such incredible numbers.
And the landfill issue, of course, is that very few people recycle their plastic bags (and even the recycling process is energy and water intensive, it actually recovers very little usable product, it just keeps them out of landfills). Billions of plastic bags end up in one of two places: Landfills, where they sit for thousands of years because they don't degrade, where they eventually begin to emit toxic gases. The ocean, where they float for years before the sun slowly breaks them down, where fish eat them, and are in turn eaten by larger fish, and then eaten by us, so those chemicals end up in our food chain.
I'll get you a link for the health hazards of not washing reusable bags later. Far as I know there aren't any studies on energy costs of washing, though, since most people don't.
I'll also post a link to a broad comparison, because I think you are overselling your side a little. By my recollection it takes 300+ reuses just for reusable bags to break even with plastic bags (especially when you consider the reuse of those bags, which is common and convenient).
And as far as I know you're overstating the landfill "problem". There is plenty of room for landfills. What toxic gases are you referring to? The same that any landfill produces? We have mechanisms for capturing and using those for productive purposes. Or is there some other gas that will be released in X number of years?
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your links are entertaining, Kate. I'll try to respond to them later, when I'm at a computer and can more easily chop in quotes and stuff.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And those are just the first three the came up when I googled. Really, do you think the plastic bags enhance the trees?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because it is so very easy to catch and stop litterers.
One of the most prevalent and unnecessary items and one that isn't as easily picked up as litter on the street. And no one has banned it, merely presented incentives for not using it. What an enormous hardship it must be for you to have to share the world with the rest of us.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Going back a bit in this thread. Do smoking laws generally come from the left side? I always assumed that was something conservatives were legislating against.
Posts: 362 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kate, the whole start of this conversation involved me telling people how Alameda county, one of the larger counties in the SF Bay Area, has in fact banned plastic grocery bags in grocery stores.
If you weren't so preoccupied with sniping at me maybe you'd have noticed that?
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by stilesbn: Going back a bit in this thread. Do smoking laws generally come from the left side? I always assumed that was something conservatives were legislating against.
I think it depends what you want to smoke.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You will forgive me if, for all the gross injustice it has done to you, I don't find Alameda County to be representative of the larger whole.
Nasty intrusive liberals. All conservatives intrude on are who we marry and women's health decisions.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by stilesbn: Going back a bit in this thread. Do smoking laws generally come from the left side? I always assumed that was something conservatives were legislating against.
I think it depends what you want to smoke.
Now that you mention it, I have no idea if the Michigan smoking ban came from the left or the right when it passed here. But it passed in 2010, so at the very least the measure had to make it past a Republican legislature in the state. While the South in general seems to be a bastion of free smoking wherever you wish, the vast majority of the country has some form of a smoking ban (South excepted), which suggests it's something of a bi-partisan issue.
Likewise, every state in the country has some form of seatbelt legislation, and in fact, heavily conservative states in the South seem to have just as many restrictive laws as the liberal states. Only New Hampshire has no enforcement law for adults, and most states have primary enforcement laws. These laws would not have passed in most of these states without conservative support. Surprisingly, Texas actually has the most onerous punishment for not wearing a seatbelt. I wouldn't have thought that.
So the idea that these laws are passed primarily by liberals seems to be a misnomer. Maybe some of the oddball stuff that happens in parts of SF or Berkley or NYC is led by liberal governments, but that's not necessarily indicative of nationwide patterns.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
But good lord, there are pools of contempt and condescension forming around your posts. Is it really that hard to talk to someone who disagrees with you? No wonder your posts look like you don't actually read the words of the people you're arguing against.
You're welcome not to talk to me if you find me so awful, but... Why do it and then be so hate-filled? What's the purpose? What are you getting out of the interaction?
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by stilesbn: Going back a bit in this thread. Do smoking laws generally come from the left side? I always assumed that was something conservatives were legislating against.
I think it depends what you want to smoke.
Now that you mention it, I have no idea if the Michigan smoking ban came from the left or the right when it passed here. But it passed in 2010, so at the very least the measure had to make it past a Republican legislature in the state. While the South in general seems to be a bastion of free smoking wherever you wish, the vast majority of the country has some form of a smoking ban (South excepted), which suggests it's something of a bi-partisan issue.
Likewise, every state in the country has some form of seatbelt legislation, and in fact, heavily conservative states in the South seem to have just as many restrictive laws as the liberal states. Only New Hampshire has no enforcement law for adults, and most states have primary enforcement laws. These laws would not have passed in most of these states without conservative support. Surprisingly, Texas actually has the most onerous punishment for not wearing a seatbelt. I wouldn't have thought that.
So the idea that these laws are passed primarily by liberals seems to be a misnomer. Maybe some of the oddball stuff that happens in parts of SF or Berkley or NYC is led by liberal governments, but that's not necessarily indicative of nationwide patterns.
Yeah smoking and seatbelts definitely became ingrained in the culture after a certain point. I agree they're largely bipartisan these days.
Also, I mean, Bloomberg is ostensibly a republican. Nannyism isn't localized to just the Democratic Party.
But remember, I was originally disputing your suggestion that hippie lefties want fewer government intrusions in our lives. I mostly stand by that. They just want different intrusions.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But remember, I was originally disputing your suggestion that hippie lefties want fewer government intrusions in our lives. I mostly stand by that. They just want different intrusions.
And in my next post I agreed with you entirely. Hippie lefties DO want fewer government intrusions in our lives, just like conservatives do. They just want completely different intrusions from each other and for different reasons.
But that doesn't make the original statement any less true.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: As Millennials take a larger and larger portion of the voting population, the GOP will have to start caving to their new age hippie beliefs like equality and fewer government intrusions into their lives.
Are you just trolling me, or what?
What a silly question. Liberals are far less intrusive into people's lives when it doesn't concern us. We mostly intrude into their money.
I'm going to back this conversation up a bit, because I think things have gotten bogged down in Dan's nanny-state examples being pushed in specific localities like San Francisco and New York City.
Obviously you have a squishy caveat with 'when it doesn't concern us' which can be pretty broadly interpreted, but earlier in the thread Lyrhawn points out a few intrusions I've mainly seen liberals champion (compulsory health insurance, gun control, consumer protection regulations) to which I'll add higher minimum wages, campaign finance laws, affirmative action, fair trade, and resistance to genetically modified foods, because they think these abridgements of individual liberties broadly improve our standard of living.
I think it's undeniable that there are libertarian and communitarian impulses in both parties, which was part of what Lyrhawn was saying. For Republicans, sacrificing individual liberty for the greater good usually revolves around maintaining a traditional morality, whereas for Democrats it seems focused on establishing an egalitarian morality. I imagine that, for many Democrats, 'equality' is a good enough reason to impinge on personal liberty, just as perhaps 'tradition' is a good enough reason for many Republicans.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would say equality is a bit part of it. Pragmatism is the other part, but that's not universal among liberals. It's certainly my personal liberal philosophy.
Generally though, that might be a fair way to describe it.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
One of the things world travelers most frequently notice when they enter certain countries or crappy parts of the united states is that suddenly plastic bag litter is now omnipresent, all over the ground in cities and along roads and just generally everywhere. plastic bags are such a scourge that specific bans on them can tend to go a long way in beautification efforts and making your city not look like a horrid trashpile.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know I often wonder what most US cities look like to visitors from other countries. I think every city has its nice parts, but by and large just driving around even downtown areas or up and down freeways, all I see is crumbling concrete and large amounts of litter.
Then again, that's mostly Detroit, so, that might be an outlier.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
So Peter (it is Peter, right, SenojRetep? I feel like I've asked you this before.) had a succinct summary of the situation. But I left a few comments of yours hanging, Lyr, so I'm gonna respond now. Also I find the plastic bag issue in particular to be really fascinating, because even by the priorities of environmentalists (which I disagree with) the ban is not good.
So, here's some more bag blather:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I haven't actually seen anything about washing reusable bags, could you point me in the direction of something on that? My guess would be that reusable bags still come out way ahead because the water and energy that goes into making plastic bags is so extreme and they're used in such incredible numbers.
Okay, here are a few things. Here's an article that talks about some studies, and here's one of the mentioned studies as well. This pertains to the danger of reusable bags, and the fact that most people admit they don't regularly wash them. There were notable increases in foodborne illnesses in areas that enacted the plastic bag bans. I tend to look critically at correlational studies like this, but it seems to me they are the environmentalist movement's bread and butter. So what's specifically wrong with this one?
And anyway, if it's wrong, and people do regularly wash them, of course, that increases the "environmental impact," too. Washing takes energy!
Also, good study about the comparison between reusable and plastic bags can be found here. My recollection of 300+ reuses to break even was slightly off, in that it assumes everyone is reusing plastic bags one time (e.g. as a trash can liner.) The more conservative estimation of 40% reuse means a reusable bag needs to be used 173 times to break even. But, again, this is not factoring in the cost of washing.
Finally, here's a handy list of bag myths. Like the use of oil in manufacturing plastic bags, for example.
I want to reiterate that all of this is engaging with the issue on the environmentalist's terms. It's ceding a lot that I, personally, do not cede. Like how important "environmental impact" is compared to useful, efficient products that save time and improve human lives. You already know that, though. I care about the environment insofar as it impacts humans, not for any inherent value. We don't agree on this, and I think that's okay for this discussion right now. I'm more interested in analyzing the anti-bag environmentalist position based on its own priorities and morality.
Okay, I also said I'd respond to some of your earlier points. Here goes:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:From: Dan_Frank [b]This policy sounds good in theory, but it's actually open to way too much interpretation. Here are two examples:
If you think that someone's diet is incurring health care costs that are therefore hurting you, you can use that to justify intruding into their life.
And if you think that someone getting gay married sets a negative example and harms the fabric of society, thus making life harder for you and your family, then you can use that to justify intruding into their life.
In practice, one has to be careful not to twist the meaning of what can "harm" you. Looking at things from a collective, rather than individual, perspective is one big way that this gets clouded (as in both of the examples above.) If you think someone is doing something stupid, it's important to use persuasion, not force.[b]
Dan I don't want you to feel dogpiled, so if you don't want to respond, I'll understand.
I guess I see a problem with the connection you tried to make there. There's actual documented evidence that poor decisions one person makes impacts the overall price of healthcare. So it's not a matter of personal opinion that someone's bad choice has a negative effect on the community. Gay marriage, however, is some amorphous ooky gooey FEELING that the gays are lurking out there ruining your marriage simply by existing. One is based on empirical evidence. One is feelings based.
Yes, I see your point, but this is where we introduce evidence into the equation. If you can PROVE that gay marriage has a negative impact worthy of banning, then show me the data. I don't think that's a ridiculous standard, do you?
I get the distinction you're trying to draw, but it's still a lot murkier than you think.
For example, on the issue of plastic bags, here are some of the responses we've seen in this very thread:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Garbage all over the place may not bother you, but it is unpleasant for the rest of us.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: One of the things world travelers most frequently notice when they enter certain countries or crappy parts of the united states is that suddenly plastic bag litter is now omnipresent, all over the ground in cities and along roads and just generally everywhere. plastic bags are such a scourge that specific bans on them can tend to go a long way in beautification efforts and making your city not look like a horrid trashpile.
These are aesthetic arguments, not empirical ones. These are based, as you put it, "ooky gooey feelings."
And it can go further than this, too. As I mentioned above, I don't think that nature-untouched-by-man has any special value. I think what matters about nature is that we live here, and we should alter it as much as possible to make it more hospitable to us. So what if we have empirical data that shows X practice measurably improves human life but also measurably harms nature? That decision can't be made simply by empirical or pragmatic means. There are other judgments that you have to make in interpreting the data you have.
Also, an important quibble: You don't prove things in science, with or without empirical data. You disprove things, or you fail to disprove them.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: And we DO use persuasion, it's called democracy. If people in SF don't like all these rules you're talking about, then they should vote for other city council members and get those ordinances overturned. The fact that that hasn't happened suggests not enough people care that much about it.
Just a quick comment here: You're right that a liberal democracy uses persuasion more than any other form of government. That's what makes it a good system of government!
But, fundamentally, the "persuasion" you're describing here is collective. If a sufficient number of people are persuaded of something, then everyone is forced into it. Persuasion on an individual level is not necessary for a democracy to function. But that's the best kind of persuasion. Whenever possible, people should be free to do as they choose, and if you disagree, either persuade each other or leave each other alone.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: But again, if you're doing something dangerous to my health and I can't persuade you to stop just by talking, then you really leave me no choice. I'm not sacrificing my health for your right to be a douche.
Right, this is where "...or leave each other alone" is very important. As important as persuasion, even. If the other person refuses to leave you alone and won't be persuaded, then yeah, at that point they aren't leaving you any choice.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Oh yeah and I said I'd reply to this. I don't get the impression you actually care, though, Kate, so I don't think I'll go to the effort of writing up some of my beefs with the garbage patch.
For now I'll just point out that even bringing up the garbage patch is a huge non-sequitur, because the vast majority of the plastic found in it is polystyrene.
But plastic bags are made of polyethylene. So... there's that. Pesky facts.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Liberals do not infringe on your liberty, because liberals follow something closer to Stuart Mills Utilitarianism where your 'liberty' is not in fact infringed; and in some ways does not exist as commonly understood. This is where the notion of negative and positive rights usually enter the equation. You have rights FOR certain things but also the right to not be INFRINGED by certain other things. They are not intrinsically the same to each other.
Thus, the "Liberals" infringing on your "money" is not equivalent to moralism because moralism doesn't hold up to scrutiny when comparing ethical systems.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's my overall, thematic beef, Dan: I don't find fault with the notion that we ought to be concerned with the environment for reasons other than improvement of human lives, rather than aesthetics or 'ooey gooey feelings', even though there's a case to be made that improving human convenience is something of an ooey gooey aim of itself. But I do see where you're coming from.
My criticism is this: the condition of the environment, and I mean that in every possible facet, has enormous impact on human lives. It's our habitat, after all. But that habitat is not actually a series of small factors that we can easily observe and control and modify to suit whatever the current human desire might be. In fact it's a vast interconnected system which we're discovering, the closer and longer we study it, is not at all as predictable and easily managed as we might think.
Therefore, there is a very real very selfishly (and I don't mean that word in a bad way) human interest in minimizing the impact we have on the environment when we have a poor understanding of what that impact actually will be. Which is, well, let's just say often and call it an understatement.
So basically, it seems to me, there's a very real human interest in trying to put fewer dings and stains in the environment, and it's got nothing to do with some sort of reverence for nature or ooey gooey feelings. Of course a precarious and wavering balancing act is required, but as for human interest? It doesn't seem to me that your scope is concerned *enough* with human interest.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
I'll get back to the bag thing later if you like, since I want a little time to read all the links you provided before responding. Though I will say that, I'm not the one making the beautification argument. I will say, however, that if a local city council wants to make a law pertaining to city beautification, I think they have a right to, since that's pretty much exactly what they're there to do (among other things).
quote:From Dan: And it can go further than this, too. As I mentioned above, I don't think that nature-untouched-by-man has any special value. I think what matters about nature is that we live here, and we should alter it as much as possible to make it more hospitable to us. So what if we have empirical data that shows X practice measurably improves human life but also measurably harms nature? That decision can't be made simply by empirical or pragmatic means. There are other judgments that you have to make in interpreting the data you have.
Well, I actually think that generally, things that harm nature actually harm us as well. Though of course I disagree with you and think there is intrinsic value in nature. I don't think most people would be on board with strip mining the Grand Canyon or Mammoth Caves, for example, were that a possibility.
But I agree there are non-empirical considerations to be made, you're right. I think the other side has a far greater habit of ignoring the numbers and going with "the feelings" though. That is, however, just a feeling on my part.
quote:Also, an important quibble: You don't prove things in science, with or without empirical data. You disprove things, or you fail to disprove them.
We're not doing science here, we're doing politics, so that's not really relevant. But thanks for the tip!
quote:Just a quick comment here: You're right that a liberal democracy uses persuasion more than any other form of government. That's what makes it a good system of government!
But, fundamentally, the "persuasion" you're describing here is collective. If a sufficient number of people are persuaded of something, then everyone is forced into it. Persuasion on an individual level is not necessary for a democracy to function. But that's the best kind of persuasion. Whenever possible, people should be free to do as they choose, and if you disagree, either persuade each other or leave each other alone.
I'm not sure I see the problem with the distinction you're drawing. Of course everyone isn't always going to agree. If that was the standard, we wouldn't be a country. The whole point of the country is majority rule with respect for minority rights. I suppose we can quibble over what minority rights are, but this country has never been about unanimous consent. Surely you must know me well enough to know that I'll argue (persuade) with anyone as best I can for as long as I can to try to get them to genuinely see my side of the story. I'd rather they agree with me than not, but if they don't, well, they aren't leaving me any other options. But I agree it's important to try.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dan, in your response in which you quote me, I don't think you know who you are responding to. Additionally, your axioms about what does or does not have value has no bearing on the idea that there is potential tangible benefit to cities for severely restricting the dispensation and typical use of plastic bags. Ones which go into practical city utility well beyond ooky gooey feelings (i seriously have no idea where that quote comes into this)
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Dan, in your response in which you quote me, I don't think you know who you are responding to. Additionally, your axioms about what does or does not have value has no bearing on the idea that there is potential tangible benefit to cities for severely restricting the dispensation and typical use of plastic bags. Ones which go into practical city utility well beyond ooky gooey feelings (i seriously have no idea where that quote comes into this)
I wasn't responding to you, I was using your quote as one of two examples for something I was saying to Lyr. I think that's clear in full context, but I can see how it would be confusing if you scanned my mega-post to see if I'd said something just to you.
Sorry for the confusion!
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: As I mentioned above, I don't think that nature-untouched-by-man has any special value.
Because you don't breathe oxygen, I take it?
Really? I mean, good god. How about don't hack off the next sentence and get your answer from the same post you just quoted:
quote: Originally posted by Dan: As I mentioned above, I don't think that nature-untouched-by-man has any special value. I think what matters about nature is that we live here, and we should alter it as much as possible to make it more hospitable to us.
I just... That was a pretty low hatchet job, man. Please tell me you just weren't paying attention, and it wasn't intentional. Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Also, an important quibble: You don't prove things in science, with or without empirical data. You disprove things, or you fail to disprove them.
We're not doing science here, we're doing politics, so that's not really relevant. But thanks for the tip!
Well, I brought it up because you said this:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Yes, I see your point, but this is where we introduce evidence into the equation. If you can PROVE that gay marriage has a negative impact worthy of banning, then show me the data. I don't think that's a ridiculous standard, do you?
This is when you were talking about how you should base stuff on empirical data and not feelings. If we're really going to be using empirical data in this way, it should be data gathered scientifically. So my comment about proofs was relevant to this, I thought.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Dan - I'll get back to the bag thing later if you like, since I want a little time to read all the links you provided before responding. Though I will say that, I'm not the one making the beautification argument. I will say, however, that if a local city council wants to make a law pertaining to city beautification, I think they have a right to, since that's pretty much exactly what they're there to do (among other things).
Doesn't matter if you get back to it, I just figured you might still be curious about the claims I'd made. Don't feel an obligation to continue that discussion for my sake. And/or feel free to start a new thread or email me or whatever.
Also: I know you're not personally making the beautification argument. But it's being made. By people on "your side," inasmuch as you have a "side." I was just observing that making decisions based on such standards is very common to everyone. Which, to be clear, I don't actually think is a bad thing. I have no problem with arguments not specifically based in empirical data. By the same token, I don't think it's inherently bad for conservatives to make tradition-based arguments against gay marriage. I happen to disagree with most of their arguments, but not simply because they lack much empirical data.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:From Dan: And it can go further than this, too. As I mentioned above, I don't think that nature-untouched-by-man has any special value. I think what matters about nature is that we live here, and we should alter it as much as possible to make it more hospitable to us. So what if we have empirical data that shows X practice measurably improves human life but also measurably harms nature? That decision can't be made simply by empirical or pragmatic means. There are other judgments that you have to make in interpreting the data you have.
Well, I actually think that generally, things that harm nature actually harm us as well. Though of course I disagree with you and think there is intrinsic value in nature. I don't think most people would be on board with strip mining the Grand Canyon or Mammoth Caves, for example, were that a possibility.
Aesthetics have value. Those places are aesthetically interesting and unique. People enjoy seeing them! So... yeah. They have lots of human-centered value, actually.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: But I agree there are non-empirical considerations to be made, you're right. I think the other side has a far greater habit of ignoring the numbers and going with "the feelings" though. That is, however, just a feeling on my part.
Yeah, they say the same thing about you.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Just a quick comment here: You're right that a liberal democracy uses persuasion more than any other form of government. That's what makes it a good system of government!
But, fundamentally, the "persuasion" you're describing here is collective. If a sufficient number of people are persuaded of something, then everyone is forced into it. Persuasion on an individual level is not necessary for a democracy to function. But that's the best kind of persuasion. Whenever possible, people should be free to do as they choose, and if you disagree, either persuade each other or leave each other alone.
I'm not sure I see the problem with the distinction you're drawing. Of course everyone isn't always going to agree. If that was the standard, we wouldn't be a country. The whole point of the country is majority rule with respect for minority rights. I suppose we can quibble over what minority rights are, but this country has never been about unanimous consent. Surely you must know me well enough to know that I'll argue (persuade) with anyone as best I can for as long as I can to try to get them to genuinely see my side of the story. I'd rather they agree with me than not, but if they don't, well, they aren't leaving me any other options. But I agree it's important to try.
I'm not talking about unanimous consent, per se. Don't forget the equally important second option of "leave each other alone."
We don't have to agree. But... let me paraphrase William Godwin: If you fail to persuade someone that your argument right, that is the worst possible justification for forcing them to comply.
You know what, I'm going to find the quote. Here it is:
quote:Originally posted by William Godwin: If he who employs coercion against me could mold me to his purposes by argument, no doubt he would. He pretends to punish me because his argument is strong; but he really punishes me because his argument is weak.
I think this is an incredibly valuable and underappreciated observation about persuasion, argument, and force. And I think it's just as relevant in the context of a government as it is on an individual basis.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think there is value in that, but ignores the Douchebag Corollary.
Sometimes people simply want what they want and don't give a crap about other people.
quote:This is when you were talking about how you should base stuff on empirical data and not feelings. If we're really going to be using empirical data in this way, it should be data gathered scientifically. So my comment about proofs was relevant to this, I thought.
I see what you brought that up, but my point still stands. This is a lot closer to a court of law than to science. I'm an historian. I read all the information, all the evidence I can find, and then I use that information to produce a thesis, then I write out a story/argument based on that thesis using the evidence to support me, explaining how the weight of that evidence leads me to my conclusion and how competing evidence isn't strong enough. It's literally what I do on a daily basis.
No one is ever going to hear an argument that history is science. At the end of the day, I could be right, and I could be wrong. I look for evidence, and go where it leads me. If the evidence is good enough to change my mind, then I'll change my mind, though it may be that if I have an idea particularly firmly entrenched, it might take more evidence to convince me than someone else, and I'm always pleased when I find new evidence that backs up my thesis. But that's usually what sways me. I use studies, numbers, science, if you will, to back up my points where applicable, but the standards of a thesis-driven argument in history are a bit different than they are for science. I don't run experiments to try to disprove my thesis, not that explicitly, though you'll certainly find bad historians out there who ignore solid evidence that doesn't support them. The standards and practices are just a little different, which is why your bringing up science doesn't really apply to my thought process on policy making. And I would add to that, that the social sciences, where a lot of studies on government policy come from, also do not share the same standards of a hard science like astronomy or something.
If we did it that way, we'd implement policy not having any idea how it worked, and then tried to prove it wrong. That might be how you prove a hypoethesis in a lab, but it's not how you run a functioning society and government.
(sorry this might be a little meandering. I'm pretty tired)
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It made sense to me. I largely agree with your assessment of how things are "proven" in social sciences and history. Maybe disagree on the consequences of that assessment, but yeah. Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think this is an incredibly valuable and underappreciated observation about persuasion, argument, and force. And I think it's just as relevant in the context of a government as it is on an individual basis.
This is of course very well put and it's something to keep in mind, but we must also keep in mind as Lyrhawn alludes to that it's by no means necessarily true in each instance. You would perhaps apply that quote with reference to the trash bags, but perhaps you would not with respect to people agitating against a nuclear plant opening.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
China is a pretty good example of where people focus on whats good for people only to end up harming people through pollution.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: As I mentioned above, I don't think that nature-untouched-by-man has any special value.
Because you don't breathe oxygen, I take it?
Really? I mean, good god. How about don't hack off the next sentence and get your answer from the same post you just quoted:
quote: Originally posted by Dan: As I mentioned above, I don't think that nature-untouched-by-man has any special value. I think what matters about nature is that we live here, and we should alter it as much as possible to make it more hospitable to us.
I just... That was a pretty low hatchet job, man. Please tell me you just weren't paying attention, and it wasn't intentional.
Right, so if it comes down to it, if people in general do something to nature or our localized environment which makes our lives worse in the long run, should they be regulated?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well by Dan's own reasoning, the answer would be an obvious 'yes' given your inclusion of the phrase 'makes lives worse'.
My question is what do you do, on which side do you err, when that aspect is often unpredictable and only spotted after the damage has been done, building up to some saturation point before it starts showing up?
----
Also, appreciate you mentioning that, Elison (I will try and remember to call you that). It was an example that occured to me quickly, but I was frankly wary of mentioning it, a concern that was mistaken as it turns out.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The pollution in China is catastrophic in every sense of the word, river and water table pollution in particular. I don't see how Dan can see how the US can avoid becoming like that by putting in less government effort than the Chinese are currently investing to avert it.
Green energy, green materials, biodegradable stuff, nuclear power; they are taking it seriously why shouldn't the United States?
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would be surprised if Dan didn't easily agree that the PRC example of unfettered (or poorly fettered) pollution such as happens there is an obvious example of things that make human lives worse and need to be examined. I'd be surprised if he didn't consider that pretty simple, too, I mean it fits with what he's said.
As for taking it seriously, eh, it's still news that the government is openly discussion the question or allowing discussion, so I would be a ways off from saying they're taking it seriously yet.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The US is taking it pretty seriously. Keep in mind that, while the US might spend less on green energy stuff per capita, it's still a world leader in basic R&D funding, and it's installing new wind turbines and such at a prodigious rate, if not as fast as China where they are flush with state cash and can create whole cities on a whim.
The Navy is almost single handedly propping up the green fuels industry during its infancy now. The DoE is turning out billions of dollars in loans to green energy companies, and as much for basic research, which is still needed.
And for that matter, we passed the Clear Air Act, the Clean Water Act, created the EPA, etc., a few decades ago, and all those things made a huge difference. The Chinese need to do the same, but won't, because it will probably nudge up the cost of doing business just enough to really hurt their manufacturing output at a really crucial moment.
Also, the United States is one of the few countries to actually reduce its greenhouse gases in the last few years, largely due to fracking, but that's another argument. Air quality in most places has been generally improving, and as coal fired plants go offline, air quality will continue to improve tremendously.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: You know I often wonder what most US cities look like to visitors from other countries. I think every city has its nice parts, but by and large just driving around even downtown areas or up and down freeways, all I see is crumbling concrete and large amounts of litter.
Then again, that's mostly Detroit, so, that might be an outlier.
I've been doing, fortunately, a fair amount of business travel to the States in the last couple of years. I can probably answer this ... except for a few cases, it isn't an outlier.
Surprisingly (to some), entry into the States by plane isn't actually that big a deal. The major hassle with the TSA is getting out of the States, but I'll get to that. Pre-clearance is done on the Canadian side of the border by, AFAIK, American staff, but American staff who seem much more mellow than their American-based counterparts. I've never flown from a different country to the States or without visa-free status, so I can't speak to that but I suspect that could be pretty painful.
When you're flying, simply avoid flying with American carriers, especially United. There are the illustrative first and second examples, but this is really just the tip of the iceberg. By and large, it seems to me that Americans have largely forgotten that flying should be an enjoyable affair. There are a few countries that I've had flying experiences almost as bad (Italy, for example), but not nearly as consistently.
When you land, American airports are usually pretty old, inefficient, and decrepit. There are a few shining counter-examples. I found Denver to be extremely well-run, decently clean, and efficient. But I've had more experiences like La Guardia where you step off the plane and you have to do a double-take to make sure you're in a first world country.
When you're travelling toward the city from an airport, many North American cities don't look particularly attractive. The decaying infrastructure is one thing, but what stands out more to me are the large differences in income and the larger racial divides. It can be a pretty stressful exercise figuring out which areas to simply avoid and how to deal with aggressive beggars and/or religious crackpots. Or it just feels weird to hit the urine smell in New York's subways and then pop out into areas that are ridiculously expensive.
To go back to the beginning, the real hassle is actually flying out. The TSA is much more of a pain on this side of the border. As an example, if you opt-out of the rape-scan they (as I strongly suspect) penalize you. I had this bizarre experience where after opting out, their machine (a mass spectrometer?) claimed that I has been exposed to explosives. Their agent frisked me (while giving a long lecture on how I could avoid all this if I just got scanned, which is kinda weird) and then their machine came up with the same result. Then they let me on the plane. It's just baffling and unprofessional at times.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: As for taking it seriously, eh, it's still news that the government is openly discussion the question or allowing discussion, so I would be a ways off from saying they're taking it seriously yet.
I feel like there are two questions here.
a) Which population is more allowed to discuss the problem? b) Which government is doing more about the problem)?
What you're addressing is a) and for sure there is no question about the fact that Americans can talk about the problem a lot more. But that doesn't actually address the problem (in fact, all the hot air could make it worse ). It could very well be the case that the population that is able to talk about it more has a government that does less, which seems to be the case.
In fact much of the media and netizen coverage on the Chinese side leads me to believe that less would be done with more discussion, not more. Mind you, this could very well be a good thing! For example, slower and safer construction of high-speed trains might be better for people's safety, but it definitely slows down displacing emissions from plane flights. As another example, the debate between the Republicans and Democrats pretty much rules out a national carbon tax in the US, but China is projected to take the hit on a carbon tax with the current five-year plan, possibly as early as next year.
China has built high-speed trains all across the country, displacing hundreds if not thousands of high-emissions flights. High-speed is basically still a pipe dream in the US. China has built dozens (maybe hundreds) of subway stations displacing a huge number of car trips. The US is effectively stuck in this regard. China is building more nuclear reactors than any other country, even adjusted per capita compared to the much richer US.
Also as an aside, China doesn't have the "advantage" of an economic recession which did more than anything else to reduce US emissions. See:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Also, the United States is one of the few countries to actually reduce its greenhouse gases in the last few years, largely due to fracking ...
and
quote:This is not to claim that the problem is solving itself. An even bigger factor in the reduction in fuel use was likely the economic recession itself. The Economic Report of the President estimated that 52% of the decline in U.S. CO2 emissions could be attributed to the economic recession, 40% to fuel switching, and 8% to improved energy efficiency. As the economy recovers, the EIA is expecting U.S. emissions to resume their historical climb if there are no new policy actions.
This is not to claim that everything is hunky dory, China clearly has an extremely serious pollution problem. I don't mind this being emphasized. But this fact doesn't really detract from the point that China has been working on the problem a lot more seriously and with a lot less resources than the US for a good while now.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
An interesting point I hadn't included, but it doesn't disprove my point.
I would argue that China has a lot of advantages the United States does not in this regard, but yes, I largely agree that they have been much more aggressive about it.
Despite that, China is building coal-fired plants at an alarming rate. They're taking the situation more seriously, perhaps, but they also have a much, much larger hill to climb in many ways.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
