100 % agreement with this essence of this post, but not with it failure to cash out what "nuance" means in practice. It means that every decision to oxidize a carbon atom and emit a molecule of CO2 into the atmosphere should take account of the cost imposed on others of that emission. And how does that happen? By each country levying an excise tax on the first sale of carbon containing fuels in proportion to the carbon content. Are there other things that will help pending levying these taxes? Yes and we should charge ahead with those that closely mimic the effects of the tax, but keep our eyes on the ultimate objective, dealing with CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere at as low a cost as possible.
Almost two decades ago as I emerged from my lack of political involvement, my family would scold me to be more civil and accepting of my "liberal" friends and community members. They said I was too abrasive.
So, I set out to listen more and not speak my opposition to their ideas and opinions.
Over that time I learned that my original orientation was actually too accepting. I came to the realization that people identifying as liberal progressive are generally people that lack the capacity for rational trade-off analysis conclusions. They are people with dysfunctional psychology... where gaps in their psyche... their need to fill them... overwhelm acceptance of rational points.
These are people that are more at risk for ideological capture as they crave things to fill those gaps. They are not whole. They are developmentally incomplete.
And there are many of them... they flock together because being around people like them makes them feel more accepted.
But you cannot have a rational debate with them on topics like climate change (not rebranded by them as climate crisis).
They are prone to mass formation, adoption of mythology and hysteria. The only thing you can do is constantly humiliate them for their irrational behavior and talk, and to suggest therapy is needed before they come back to the conversation.
With respect to climate change, of course we need to discuss it from a perspective of trade-off analyses. The problem with engaging these people is that the only trade-off they care about is their own sense of personal ego and righteousness. They will never admit they are wrong about anything because it would result in a hit to their self-worth... which is already artificially propped up by their belief that they are The Elect... the righteous tribe.
The purpose of an energy system is to enable human flourishing.
<3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3
100 % agreement with this essence of this post, but not with it failure to cash out what "nuance" means in practice. It means that every decision to oxidize a carbon atom and emit a molecule of CO2 into the atmosphere should take account of the cost imposed on others of that emission. And how does that happen? By each country levying an excise tax on the first sale of carbon containing fuels in proportion to the carbon content. Are there other things that will help pending levying these taxes? Yes and we should charge ahead with those that closely mimic the effects of the tax, but keep our eyes on the ultimate objective, dealing with CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere at as low a cost as possible.
Could you please be more analytically rigorous, and lay off the cherry picking.
You're setting a bad example for the New York Times.
Well said Todd!
"The case for the pragmatic middle"
Almost two decades ago as I emerged from my lack of political involvement, my family would scold me to be more civil and accepting of my "liberal" friends and community members. They said I was too abrasive.
So, I set out to listen more and not speak my opposition to their ideas and opinions.
Over that time I learned that my original orientation was actually too accepting. I came to the realization that people identifying as liberal progressive are generally people that lack the capacity for rational trade-off analysis conclusions. They are people with dysfunctional psychology... where gaps in their psyche... their need to fill them... overwhelm acceptance of rational points.
These are people that are more at risk for ideological capture as they crave things to fill those gaps. They are not whole. They are developmentally incomplete.
And there are many of them... they flock together because being around people like them makes them feel more accepted.
But you cannot have a rational debate with them on topics like climate change (not rebranded by them as climate crisis).
They are prone to mass formation, adoption of mythology and hysteria. The only thing you can do is constantly humiliate them for their irrational behavior and talk, and to suggest therapy is needed before they come back to the conversation.
With respect to climate change, of course we need to discuss it from a perspective of trade-off analyses. The problem with engaging these people is that the only trade-off they care about is their own sense of personal ego and righteousness. They will never admit they are wrong about anything because it would result in a hit to their self-worth... which is already artificially propped up by their belief that they are The Elect... the righteous tribe.