tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2600947515654238699.post3452383945348722083..comments2024-03-09T19:23:22.482-03:00Comments on The RPGPundit: Classic Rant: Back to The Cave Thinking: Want Proof?RPGPundithttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17267330191433119298noreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2600947515654238699.post-53434972499543229342016-07-12T10:56:10.777-04:002016-07-12T10:56:10.777-04:00+RPGPundit, great post, too few people are willing...+RPGPundit, great post, too few people are willing to print the truth. And this post is the truth. Those who disagree with this are clearly idiots.Daithi MacLiamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07164875676148219662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2600947515654238699.post-79051974786465532092016-06-23T13:33:53.096-04:002016-06-23T13:33:53.096-04:00Again, I never said that anti-nuclear activists do...Again, I never said that anti-nuclear activists don't exist. Not being a fanatic I don't have to hold myself to absolute positions. My point was always that it is an unsettled issue among environmentalists, has many people willing to consider it, and as the science and technology has gotten better over time, more former opponents are reconsidering. Brett Dayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16824523035634687498noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2600947515654238699.post-14918737385127683822016-06-22T22:29:15.800-04:002016-06-22T22:29:15.800-04:00And yet REALITY shows that we do not have any grow...And yet REALITY shows that we do not have any growth in nuclear energy. If your argument was more accurate than mind, why hasn't that happened? It is because of the anti-nuclear political will you are pretending doesn't exist.RPGPundithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17267330191433119298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2600947515654238699.post-3603349504817674442016-06-22T11:33:04.687-04:002016-06-22T11:33:04.687-04:00It is relevent because the anti-nuclear energy gro...It is relevent because the anti-nuclear energy group has nowhere near as much control over the Dems as the Religious Right has over the GOP. The Dem House leader and Presidential nominee as open to nuclear; the GOP would never have a pro-choice politician in either of those roles.<br /><br />You have ignored more popular politicians and well read news and opinion sources to focus on people and groups who have never swung an election or played a part in legislative or regulatory negotiations. The only one Cherry Picking facts is you. You're back to making unsourced, insane claims about how the left sees mankind that are as mainstream on the left as neo-nazism is on the right.Brett Dayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16824523035634687498noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2600947515654238699.post-58642178833723497242016-06-21T18:37:21.456-04:002016-06-21T18:37:21.456-04:00It's not relevant, because they will never be ...It's not relevant, because they will never be able to get nuclear off the ground faced in the opposition of their own party's environmentalist left. <br />It's like how there are pro-choice republicans but it's not going to matter as long as the GOP has to answer to the Religious Right.<br /><br />Your cherry-picking of facts doesn't change the reality on the ground. The Left sees mankind as a virus on "mother nature" and considers anything that we do in the world as nothing more than a varying spectrum of harm. They also generally feel ashamed of belonging to Western Civilization, and are constantly betraying it and it's values while mollycoddling much more barbaric ideologies in the hopes that those will help "deconstruct" the West.RPGPundithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17267330191433119298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2600947515654238699.post-18052626698526012722016-06-21T14:13:36.550-04:002016-06-21T14:13:36.550-04:00I never said anything even close to that. *You* as...I never said anything even close to that. *You* asserted that the "Environmentalist Left" would never allow nuclear as part of a renewable energy mix. I showed via direct quotes that many environmentalists are open to the idea of nuclear. You tried to support your blanket state of the opinions of all environmentalists with a few groups, who I pointed out aren't the unchallenged thought leaders of the entire environmentalist movement. Some oppose nuclear, but they are not the majority of environmentalists, let alone the unchallenged leaders, and they are not currently in power at any of the levels of relevant government (in the US, at least, which as the biggest per capita polluter in the world and the second largest polluter in absolute terms). Politicians further left than Clinton who support (at least tentatively) nuclear power include Rep and former Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Dianne Feinstein. http://articles.latimes.com/2007/apr/09/nation/na-nuke9 Others further to the right of Clinton who oppose it include Harry Reid. It's not a left-right issue within environmentalists circles, it's an issue of how do you do the cost - benefit analysis, likelihood of problems times severity of problem weighted against the positives. Not everyone agrees on the correct values of those three variables, but we're attempting to settle (or at least get a better estimate) of their true values by looking at the science (such as in the Vox article linked elsewhere in this thread). Brett Dayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16824523035634687498noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2600947515654238699.post-49575830125129940712016-06-20T22:21:36.301-04:002016-06-20T22:21:36.301-04:00So your definition of a relevant and powerful envi...So your definition of a relevant and powerful environmentalist is basically Hillary Clinton. Everyone to the left of her is a powerless lunatic who doesn't matter?RPGPundithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17267330191433119298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2600947515654238699.post-13889984729520942522016-06-20T12:02:52.679-04:002016-06-20T12:02:52.679-04:00BTW, I think it's *awesome* that you accused m...BTW, I think it's *awesome* that you accused me of making a "no true scotsman" argument in the same post you said Merkel's government isn't "right wing." Fucking Encyclopædia Britannica Online lists them as conservative; along with over 20 other sources linked off the CDU Wikipedia page. You want to go ahead and "debunk" all that (plus the CDU itself), using actual facts instead of one of those "no true scotsmans" arguments you yourself just decried, I would love to see that.<br /><br />Also, congrats on calling me "bitch," you have achieved your goal of sounding like Jesse Pinkman. At least when you call people "swine" its sort of funny in an anachronistic way; this just makes you sound like someone who still has a fourteen year old's idea of how to sound tough. <br /><br />All you've been able to show with 10:10 / Forum for the Future is that they do a good job fundraising. Lots of fringe groups on all sides can do that. My point has been, stated repeatedly, that they lack actual *influence.* They have not gotten a single piece of legislation adopted into law. Show me where they've had an effect on law, or else your original contention that the "environmentalist left won't allow nuclear" is still resting on nothing. I'll just add that, since 2010, I've worked (not volunteered, but actual full time staff) for the campaigns of a Democratic Governor, Senator, and three Congressmen. In all that time on all those campaigns, I have literally *never* heard of these groups until talking to you. In the political world they are non-entities, and you have offered nothing that would refute that. <br /><br />Also, why would it be a paradox to say something is tiny or insignificant or peripheral? "Peripheral" and "insignificant" are literally synonyms (in the "marginal" sense). http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/peripheral Do you understand what these words actually mean, or do you need more time to consult a dictionary?<br /><br />As for Clinton opposing nuclear, not according to her proposals on her own website! "As part of the Clean Energy Challenge, Clinton will ensure that every part of the federal government is working in concert to help Americans build a clean energy future. This includes: [...]<br /><br />Innovation: Increase public investment in clean energy R&D, including in storage technology, designed materials, ADVANCED NUCLEAR, and carbon capture and sequestration. Expand successful innovation initiatives, like ARPA-e, and cut those that fail to deliver results." (emphasis added for the slow reader) https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/07/26/renewable-power-vision/ Do you even bother to google your assertions before spewing them out, or just type whatever feels "truthy" to you?Brett Dayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16824523035634687498noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2600947515654238699.post-67455370140081328532016-06-17T20:04:05.056-04:002016-06-17T20:04:05.056-04:00Yes, and 10:10 was able to get Richard Curtis, why...Yes, and 10:10 was able to get Richard Curtis, why? Because THEY ARE A MAJOR FUCKING ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATION. They were associated with a huge number of public and private organizations and other major environmentalist organizations. <br /><br />Forum for the Future is a massive environmentalist organization (with a 4.5 million pound budget per year), offices in the US, UK and India, 100+ partnerships in the public and private sector, a connection with the University of Middlesex where it offers a masters program in "Masters in leadership for sustainable development".<br /><br />Your attempt to claim that these are paradoxically either tiny and insignificant groups or somehow groups peripheral to climate change activism is just pathetic.<br /><br />Almost as pathetic as how you completely ignored the fact that Clinton is every bit as anti-nuclear as Bernie. ALL the significant candidates for president on the American Left are anti-nuclear. So tell me again, bitch, how the political left or the environmentalist left are not anti-nuclear??RPGPundithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17267330191433119298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2600947515654238699.post-71402488120296630132016-06-17T10:06:17.453-04:002016-06-17T10:06:17.453-04:00No, the environmental groups did not directly make...No, the environmental groups did not directly make those videos. Or atleast not the 1st one you linked; the RT news article actually comments on how it was made by a separate film production company with the writer from "Four weddings and a funeral." 10:10 didn't go out, buy a bunch of cameras, etc. Regardless, you're missing the bigger point which is that a two ~ five minute advertisement is not full policy. Nor are either of those groups influential as either thought leaders, pundits, or public policy organs. Even if the videos are totally accurate summaries of the views of those groups, that doesn't prove anything besides a group of a few dozen publicity hounds are bonkers. Show me how they've influenced a single vote of a single MP in parliament and then they might be important. *Might*. Because, like the Sanders thing, I've been extremely clear from the beginning that the only examples you have that aren't completely fraudulent are from cultish groups or figures who don't speak for anyone except their own ridiculously small membership. They are not mainstream environmentalists. Sanders is a protest politician who has never effectively wielded power either in the legislature or at the ballot box, outside of his winning the single most extreme district out of 535 senate and house seats. One out of 535 is hardly mainstream. If you want to just point and laugh at fringe characters who've never had any affect on anything, be my guest. But saying those fringers represent environmentalists writ large is just lying.Brett Dayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16824523035634687498noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2600947515654238699.post-32001108910301144722016-06-17T05:01:11.638-04:002016-06-17T05:01:11.638-04:00You say 'advertisements' as if those video...You say 'advertisements' as if those videos were made by Pepsico or something. They were made by major Environmentalist political lobbying groups. <br /><br />Your elimination of Sanders' policy amounts to a "no true scotsman" argument. But in case you didn't know, Hillary Clinton has also officially stated that her energy policy is absolutely non-nuclear: http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Hillary_Clinton_Environment.htm<br /><br />Also, calling Merkel's government "right-wing" is nonsensical. RPGPundithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17267330191433119298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2600947515654238699.post-48129918371320904112016-06-16T22:30:13.552-04:002016-06-16T22:30:13.552-04:00As for Sanders, you want to make the case that a g...As for Sanders, you want to make the case that a guy who's getting less than 8% (49 out of 630 super delegates) of the endorsements of the support of elected members of his own party is in any way a party leader? Remind me, what was the last big policy Bernie introduced that was signed into law? The last time Sanders played an important part in a congressional negotiation? He's got a seat in the highest legislative body in the country and he can barely leverage that perch to get his home town post office renamed. He ran for President and lost in the primaries. He didn't even get as far as George McGovern, and tell me, what great victories did McGovern lead his people to? Sanders did less than that.<br /><br />I presented as evidence articles from Mother Jones (Alexa rank 3,677 worldwide) as well as Vox, (1,097). Your counter is Green Peace (14,537) and the Sierra Club (48,057). I think my cites are pretty obviously of greater reach and influence. Again, when was the last time lawmakers took Green Peace seriously? If the answer is "zero times in the last 30 years," guess what, they're unimportant groups more interested in striking a "purer than thou" pose than actually *influencing* *people's* *lives.*<br /><br />The IPCC, who you just write off, is the group governments (the people who would have to implement these "back to the caves" policies you claim to be so concerned about) actually sanction and might one day listen to. <br /><br />And I'm sure that "Science Left Behind" book has lots of lovely anecdotes of stupid lefties making scientific mistakes. Lets be generous and assume that none of them are mistaken or outright wrong, like your four big points in your original post were. There are, what, 8 billion people on this planet? You can find anecdotes to support or oppose anything. Show me an actual study, done following the scientific method, that was peer reviewed and published in a respected journal, and then you might have something. Since you claim to understand and care so deeply about science, I'm sure I don't need to explain to you why that's a lot more relevant than anecdotes.<br /><br />As for the Environmentalist Left in Europe, if they're so monolithic and powerful, why does 75% of French electricity come from Nuclear power plants? You know, France, the country with a left wing government, as opposed to Germany, which has been lead by their Right wing party since 1982 (with only one six year interruption)?Brett Dayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16824523035634687498noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2600947515654238699.post-59239097964894582812016-06-16T22:29:56.755-04:002016-06-16T22:29:56.755-04:003) Your interpretation of John Holdren, was, again...3) Your interpretation of John Holdren, was, again factually wrong and easily demonstrated as such. Which I already did. Explain how "A far better choice, in our view, is to expand the use of milder methods of influencing family size preferences, while redoubling efforts to ensure that the means of birth control, including abortion and sterilization, are accessible to every human being on Earth within the shortest possible time." equals "advocated for the imposition of a "planetary regime" to enact such "sustainability" measures as forced mass sterilizations," or you're argument is baseless here too.<br /><br />4) Your last piece of "evidence" is a series of advertisements. Fucking ads, that's your big trump card? Here's a news flash: Sometimes, advertising people don't actually understand the product they're selling. The trailers for "Fight Club" made it look like a movie about male bonding over violence with a love triangle subplot. You expect them to get climate policy right? Of course it's not an accurate presentation. They can't present cars, movies, or snack food accurately and that's literally 99% of their job. And I say this as someone who's worked in marketing for twelve years.<br /><br />So there you go, that's all five of your pieces of evidence, and they boil down to being willful misrepresentations of what people actually said or judging something based solely on the commercials. And, most amusingly, even *if* you were right on all of them, only two (Carnegie and Holdren) have *any* influence on actual policy discussions. 60% of your evidence comes from a Lizard scientist and a couple NGOs who have never accomplished *anything*. And even Carnegie and Holdren don't actually *make* policy, they at best, get to pitch their case to people who actually make policy. Your case is stupidity piled on pointlessness.Brett Dayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16824523035634687498noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2600947515654238699.post-55948182979886930142016-06-16T22:29:32.041-04:002016-06-16T22:29:32.041-04:00The "examples" in your original post are...The "examples" in your original post are invalid for reasons I already explained (which you never responded to), but I'll briefly summarize. <br /><br />1) The Carnegie Institution’s Department of Global Ecology paper you categorized as "hailing Genghis Khan as a Eco-hero" actually called said "Genghis Khan's legacy as one of the world's cruelest conquerors isn't likely to change because of the unintended "green" consequences of his invasions, Pongratz hopes that her research can lead to land-use changes that someday might alter how future historians rate our environmental impact." The point of the article is that land use even in pre-modern methods can affect climate change in ways that people who think it's all about smoke stacks and coal might not realize.<br /><br />2) Eric Pianka *actually* argues "Humans have overpopulated the Earth and in the process have created an ideal nutritional substrate on which bacteria and viruses (microbes) will grow and prosper. ... In addition to our extremely high population density, we are social and mobile, exactly the conditions that favor growth and spread of pathogenic (disease-causing) microbes. I believe it is only a matter of time until microbes once again assert control over our population, since we are unwilling to control it ourselves." His point is a *warning* that we are creating the conditions that have lead to pandemics before (He cites the Black Death in medieval Europe, smallpox in the Americas after Columbus, and the Spanish Flu after WWI as examples of what he would like to *prevent*. Now, you can go ahead and dismiss this as "trying to backtrack and claim he was taken out of context," but you're not a fucking mind reader, so who the hell are you to tell me what's really in someone's heart of hearts? When you quote him as saying "I am convinced that the world WOULD clearly be much better off without so many of us... We need to make a transition to a sustainable world," first, you (or, since I doubt you bother to fact check any of the agiprop you unquestioningly consume and regurgitate, the people you're quoting) are butching what he said, which was "I do not bear any ill will toward people. However, I am convinced that the world, including all humanity, WOULD clearly be much better off without so many of us." Second, when compared to the rest of his writing, it pretty obviously means he thinks we're setting ourselves up for a massive pandemic and it would be great if we could just avoid that from happening. He's suggesting we slow or stop population group through voluntarily (like just handing out birth control to anyone in the world who wants it) instead of waiting until disease and death takes us the same endpoint in a much more grisly manner. Agree or disagree (or, like me, think it's a big conjuncture that hasn't had enough research or peer review to prove or falsify) be he's OBVIOUSLY not calling for death camps. Oh, and by the by, the guy is famous for his contributions to the field of *herpetology,* not public policy. You've never even shown that this person has *any* influence over the discussion among full time environmental scientists or policy experts. Show me some peer review of his positions, a policy proposal white paper based on them, ANYTHING to demonstrate he has more influence on the public than any other random member of the public has.Brett Dayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16824523035634687498noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2600947515654238699.post-33718441197147189302016-06-16T17:01:31.954-04:002016-06-16T17:01:31.954-04:00I pointed to major, MAINSTREAM (or what passes for...I pointed to major, MAINSTREAM (or what passes for "mainstream") groups in the Environmentalist left presenting what they want IN my main article. <br /><br />Also, you're idea that the Environmentalist Left are totally gung-ho and all for Nuclear Power Plants is just so patently ridiculous in light of reality that it isn't worth arguing. Again, you have FAILED to adequately explain why no western nation has been able to make the kind of progress with nuclear it should be doing. <br /><br />I suppose you'll dismiss Bernie Sanders as not an "actual leader"? His campaign plan for environmental reform explicitly put Nuclear power COMPLETELY off the table: https://berniesanders.com/issues/climate-change/<br /><br />In fact, Sanders demanded “a moratorium on nuclear power plant license renewals in the United States.”<br /><br />The IPCC has stated lukewarm support for nuclear power, but Greenpeace and the Sierra Club are both unequivocally absolutely OPPOSED to nuclear. Are those 'tiny' 'extreme' or 'not really left' groups?<br /><br />Read the book "Science Left Behind" by Berezow and Campbell, it has all kinds of details about how the Left has opposed nuclear power, hydroelectric power, and wind power. They advocate 'clean energy' and 'sustainability' but anytime that they can find an excuse (fish, birds, whatever) that involves any kind of impact on nature, the Left turns on non-fossil energy at blinding speed. That's because fundamentally, the left is anti-Human.<br /><br />Given that all you've been able to present is a VOX article, am I right in figuring you're an under-30 humanities student? And American?<br /><br />Maybe you aren't aware of the what the Environmentalist Left has done in Europe. You didn't really respond to it when I brought it up twice. So here's one last link to give you a very basic education on the subject, at your grade-level I hope:<br /><br />http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/8546608/Why-Germany-said-no-to-nuclear-power.html<br /><br /><br />RPGPundithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17267330191433119298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2600947515654238699.post-53279162294064749722016-06-16T13:41:41.298-04:002016-06-16T13:41:41.298-04:00Uh huh. Nice job with the proof-free crazy-guy-on-...Uh huh. Nice job with the proof-free crazy-guy-on-subway rant. If you bother spend even 2 minutes looking at the links posted in this thread already, you would find evidence of environmentalists doing exactly what you say they refuse to do. You can't point to a single person in government, to a single proposal, that would do what you claim is their goals. Why are you so desperate to deny that people either agree with you or are considering that you might be right? Do you need someone to hate that badly?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2600947515654238699.post-90802456248816523922016-06-15T18:39:24.900-04:002016-06-15T18:39:24.900-04:00You are the one who's full of shit. The Enviro...You are the one who's full of shit. The Environmentalist Left goes into an outrage at the thought of any expansion of nuclear power, and after the Fukushima accident, they pushed Europe to scale back on nuclear power. In the US, while there are economic reasons, one of the things that has utterly stopped nuclear expansion is that the political cost is just too high. Trying to allow local authorities to have a new nuclear plant in their local area is almost impossible, THANKS to the Environmentalist Left.RPGPundithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17267330191433119298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2600947515654238699.post-45357248230104980402016-06-15T10:03:59.615-04:002016-06-15T10:03:59.615-04:00Again, you're not bringing a single item of pr...Again, you're not bringing a single item of proof. Lots of accusations, no evidence. To take your last question first, I'm sure there are people who "go apesit with opposition using fearmongering tactics" but they're not elected officials, they are not actual leaders of anything besides there own little cults of personality. If you want to argue that point, please respond with actual elected or appointed gov't leaders, ie, someone who has actually been demonstrated to have a reasonable sized follower base. (There are 300+ million people in America; some fringe party with three thousand people or basement free paper with 10k readers is such a minor figure with so little actual influence as to not be worth discussing, unless someone is groping for a boogeyman to prop up)<br /><br />As for the issue with new nuclear reactors in America, here's an article from (a left leaning) journalism website Vox investigating that problem, but the basic answer is that they cost a lot and simply haven't made economic sense. The article compares to overseas locations that have kept the price of reactors low (primarily south korea) and discusses what we can learn from them to make reactors more economically feasible here. (It basically boils to "we haven't done it in a while so no one here has the skills to do it, we'd have to set up lots of custom links in the supply chain and train new people from scratch,") -- http://www.vox.com/2016/2/29/11132930/nuclear-power-costs-us-france-korea<br /><br />So that's two major left wing news / advocacy organizations I've shown you that are supporting renewed support and consideration of nuclear power plants. Your flat, evidence free declarations of "Nuh uh all environmentalists think in one monolithic anti-nuclear way," are sounding pretty misguided, at the very least.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2600947515654238699.post-4572392244350810402016-06-15T01:57:38.940-04:002016-06-15T01:57:38.940-04:00Really? Then why have European countries SCALED BA...Really? Then why have European countries SCALED BACK on nuclear at a time when (I'm sure you'd agree) it is more vital than ever to use nuclear to replace dirtier forms of energy? Why hasn't the US been able to build new nuclear reactors in years? Why does the left go apeshit with opposition using fearmongering tactics every time someone even suggests nuclear as a viable alternative energy source?RPGPundithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17267330191433119298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2600947515654238699.post-56000417309708783012016-06-14T23:04:21.882-04:002016-06-14T23:04:21.882-04:00lots of baseless accusations, zero response to any...lots of baseless accusations, zero response to any of the substantive points I raised. Isn't this the "want proof" post? Show some proof of your accusations. The Mother Jones link already answers your points anyway (briefly, solar and wind are already over 60% of the kWh productive capacity installed every year and growing as price keeps dropping with economies of scale, there are prominent environmentalist who support nuclear, most notably every single elected pro-environment politicIan in the country if not world).Brett Dayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16824523035634687498noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2600947515654238699.post-65933295649901688862016-06-14T22:47:50.058-04:002016-06-14T22:47:50.058-04:00Gee, I didn't realize the US Constitution gave...Gee, I didn't realize the US Constitution gave "The Environmentalist Left" a veto on laws or regulation. This is why I asked you to provide a real, actual government proposal issued by someone in the legislature or executive branch instead of vague arm waving at boogeymen. Also, fantastic job at sticking to your line even in response to a quote from a member of "the environmental left" contradicting you.Brett Dayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16824523035634687498noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2600947515654238699.post-82432196303342602322016-06-14T20:22:10.094-04:002016-06-14T20:22:10.094-04:00The Environmentalist Left will never let you use N...The Environmentalist Left will never let you use Nuclear. RPGPundithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17267330191433119298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2600947515654238699.post-49036482725049105562016-06-14T20:21:53.461-04:002016-06-14T20:21:53.461-04:00How do you obtain a 'sustainable' future t...How do you obtain a 'sustainable' future that: <br />A) doesn't require the death of at least half the current human population<br /><br />B) doesn't use nuclear power (because the Environmentalist Left won't let you)<br /><br />C) doesn't require that the vast majority of people living in the first world suffer a reduction of their quality of living (not being permitted, for example, to have limitless water-supply, car ownership, 24-hour electricity, or affordable meat)<br /><br />D) doesn't force us to stop our industrial expansion and economic growth in a capitalist system?<br /><br /><br />If you can't answer that, and you can't, it's because the "sustainability" idea is a nonsense-term that is being used as a cover to attack western capitalist civilization and individual freedom. The people who advocate for "sustainability" are one of two categories: either they KNOW this and are filthy fucking liars who despise the West, or they do not realize the implications of "sustainability" and are thus naive morons. RPGPundithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17267330191433119298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2600947515654238699.post-58220816828444891852016-06-14T17:58:48.397-04:002016-06-14T17:58:48.397-04:00or, maybe, the wealthy already had contraception a...or, maybe, the wealthy already had contraception and it's self evident that the people who need financial assistance getting contraception are the poor? Brett Dayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16824523035634687498noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2600947515654238699.post-56740591730034331862016-06-14T17:23:48.864-04:002016-06-14T17:23:48.864-04:00What's really ironic is that most *actual* env...What's really ironic is that most *actual* environmentalists agree with your conclusions in the final paragraph; they do believe in REAL solutions produced by science here, for example, is one article from Leftist mag Mother Jones: "Solar is not a panacea all by itself. To state the obvious, it only works when the sun is shining. But in combination with better storage technologies, other clean sources of electricity (wind, geo, etc.), and nuclear for baseload operation, a green electric grid is no longer a pipe dream. By 2020 solar will probably be the cheapest electric source around, and by 2040 I wouldn't be surprised if fossil fuel electric generation is basically dead in the US. Welcome to the future." (http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/03/our-long-awaited-solar-power-future-finally-here) The point of every real gov't proposal (and I mean actually introduced by members of congress, the presidents staff, etc, not what some 22 year old stoned blogger posts from his dorm room) is about getting to the point where the KW/H cost of solar is cheaper than coal sooner. Not punishing people for the sheer masochism of it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com