Conservatism and the Environment

[Marduk]

Out competing your competitors does not mean you are the best option. It just means you're the best at killing.

Good enough, i'll take it.
The victors of the killing contest get to write the history books where it says which one is the best option. Because dead civilizations don't write history books.
No matter who and how many times calls such a civilization cancer, i'd rather prefer mine to be the one in the history book writing business, rather than in the being dead business.

I do quite enjoy the fallacy of implying theres only 2 economic systems, capitalism and soviet style communism. It's quite powerful, as long as your audience has no real grasp of economic theories and their history.

Sure there are more, like neolithic hunter-gatherer subsistence economy, the one most relevant to our buffalo herd topic. Very comfy, healthy and pleasant to live in. Not.

 

[prinCZess]

Would you be able to post cites? I've heard that as a hypotheses but I havent seen anything concrete.

"The Destruction of the Bison" by Andrew Isenberg was where I first encountered it--there's a chapter specifically on the Genesis of the Nomads that touches on the evidence for pre-Columbian differences and the (relatively) rapid changes tribes seem to have went through to adjust themselves to a new situation. Dale F. Lott's "American Bison: A Natural History" and Colpitts "Pemmican Empire" get into the weeds more specifically with specific tribes and how potentially-sustainable their practices were (Lott contends 'some were', so my point is by no means unassailable*, Colpitts thesis is that they were all doomed in the long-run even without further interference from whites than the horse and the fur-trade).

*Also notable that much of it is theory and hypothesis with supporting evidence. No real concrete items that can act as really firm evidence since we lack records or any kind of accurate ecological data, especially pre-Columbus.

 

[Realm]

Well, there's also chinese style communism, and we all know that what kind of environmental record that particular country has.

So we're at 3 economic modes of production for all of human history.

Oh vaunted economist, may I be blessed with your forbidden econ 101 knowledge of the secret fourth and fifth economic modes.

Good enough, i'll take it.
The victors of the killing contest get to write the history books where it says which one is the best option. Because dead civilizations don't write history books.

The von Neuman swarm is a better "culture" than all meatball cultures?

I never realized conservatism was so Metal!

"The Destruction of the Bison" by Andrew Isenberg was where I first encountered it--there's a chapter specifically on the Genesis of the Nomads that touches on the evidence for pre-Columbian differences and the (relatively) rapid changes tribes seem to have went through to adjust themselves to a new situation. Dale F. Lott's "American Bison: A Natural History" and Colpitts "Pemmican Empire" get into the weeds more specifically with specific tribes and how potentially-sustainable their practices were (Lott contends 'some were', so my point is by no means unassailable*, Colpitts thesis is that they were all doomed in the long-run even without further interference from whites than the horse and the fur-trade).

*Also notable that much of it is theory and hypothesis with supporting evidence. No real concrete items that can act as really firm evidence since we lack records or any kind of accurate ecological data, especially pre-Columbus.

Fair enough, I'll check those out, the idea that the buffalo population was improved by deaths of natives from disease seems pretty self evident, but I do seriously doubt that they were on an unsustainable path before hand, only to be stopped by European intervention/disease, which was my main thrust there

 

[Marduk]

The von Neuman swarm is a better "culture" than all meatball cultures?

I never realized conservatism was so Metal!

A good argument for not creating a Von Neumann swarm, unless a whole civilization feel suicidal that is. Being the "superpredator" species has nice perks, don't just give away that status to own not necessarily loyal creations.

 

[Bacle]

I am going to politely ask that the derail about what counts as communism, and the debate about the merits of communism, ends now and does not restart.

 

[S'task]

To just add formal authority to @Bacle's request. While itself a potential discussion and interesting, the nature of human nature in relation to the enviroment and the entire capitalist vs communist vs pre-modern arguments ARE derails and probably should be dropped.

 

[Deleted member 18]

Simply because it is difficult, or even runs against the grain of human nature, to work out a way to balance environmental consumption with economic production is not a good reason to throw hands up in the air and write off the environment in the hope we can get into space before climate change wrecks civilization. It's honestly kind of baffling since human beings do have reason and can look at the past and present trend-lines and figure out ways to change course to some less damaging production methods and to rehabilitate parts of the world. It'd probably be much easier to stabilize the biosphere than to lift a significant portion of the human race off into space with new environments - and it's ludicrous to imagine that space habitats or Mars or whatever could sustain the sort of environmental exploitation without limit being urged here for very long.

If we can't restrain ourselves and exert the effort needed to sustain a planet worth living on then we have failed the test of the jom gabbar. Or for the Christians if God gave Earth to Stewardship then not even trying to be a good steward is a pretty huge failure regardless of the faults of human nature.

Also the idea that producing and consuming the most stuff is the acme of conservative policy is just bizarre. Consumerism has nothing to do with virtue, or tradition, or religious salvation. It's the god of neoliberalism, Mammon by another name; the elimination of all institutions that stand between the individual and the market, the reduction of humanity to mere factors of production and consumption within an economic system that has no point save vulgar enrichment of the few at the top. Defending that as "conservative" gives the Marxists here good cause to laugh at and deride us as a joke.

 

[CarlManvers2019]

The real solution is to colonise space - the resources of our own solar system are more than we could need for the foreseeable future, and there's plenty of space to put space colonies.

Colonise Space? Honestly, I think it'd be better to turn planets into places you can get resources from than places to live on.

Maybe make worldships or Dyson spheres or spacefaring arcologies and live on artificial foods in huge amounts with actual chicken being a luxury

 

[Bacle]

@Marduk So my geo-steering friend is in town and I decided to ask him some more detailed questions about horizontal drilling.

I was wrong about how far they can go right now; engineering and material strength issues limit them to 2-3 miles. It is an issue of getting enough torque down the hole while keeping the drill string from shredding itself. They also have issues with the drill string riding in the bottom of the hole while going horizontal, an issue that seems obvious but which I had not realized was there.

So you are correct, there are significant issues in making horizontal drilling large scale enough to offset some cost and engineering issues. My friend said anyone who developed a way to get more torque down the hole with the same gear would be rich.

 

[prinCZess]

So, in the American context this thread generally has--something I'd note (though it might have been already) is there tends to be more support, or at least less condemnation, of nuclear energy in the conservative/right portion of US politics.
I raise this because Sanders and Warren have come out as full-blown nutbars on the topic:

Elizabeth Warren comes out against nuclear power

Elizabeth Warren said Wednesday she would oppose the building of new nuclear plants in America and work to phase out existing nuclear power from the energy mix. “In my administration, we won’t be building new nuclear plants,” Warren said at CNN’s climate change town hall. “We will start weaning...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

"In my administration, we won't be building new nuclear plants," Warren said at CNN's climate change town hall. "We will start weaning ourselves off nuclear and replace it with renewables," she added, saying that she would aim to do so by 2035.

This just sounds similar to the German attempt at distancing themselves from nuclear...Which has increased costs and made Germany more reliant on oil and coal than it was before, if I don't misremember. This is one where science decidedly favors usage, and there are ongoing and, to my knowledge, viable options which make the issue of spent fuel even less of an issue than it would be. Yet instead of doing it, some folks pander to the GreenPeace nutters by raging against nuclear on a nonexistent basis of how 'dangerous' it is...As far as I can tell just because 'nuclear' sounds scary.

 

[CarlManvers2019]

Nuclear can be safe, just keep away from possible earthquake areas and make sure to control and properly dispose of the waste.

Plus, how much more expensive is hauling and using all that coal, oil and gasoline?

 

[Bacle]

So I want to ask how wide spread knowledge of the process called 'bioaccumulation' is among conservatives and the Right?

Because this is an issue that I think gets less attention than it deserves in the Right.

This process is why there is DDT and other pesticides in almost every part of the world now, and why Alex Jones was actually on the money about certain chemicals turning frogs gay. A lot of chemicals we produce and use do not break down easily in natural processes, leading to them accumulating in various biological pockets and niches.

This is one area where I think the Left has a point about moving towards more...natural growth enhancers and pest control measures, as well as domestic cleaning agents and the like.

 

[Selias]

The Federal Solar Tax Credit is a good example of something that could be done. Working on fixing the stigma of nuclear power would be another good one. Honestly, I haven't given it a whole lot of thought, because there's really nothing that I can do to put any ideas I have into action.

 

[LordsFire]

So, I am what is apparently a rare breed these days; I don't buy the idea that there's such a thing as man-caused climate-change in the first place.

I'm old enough to remember hearing about this stuff back in the 90's. I've been following political matters since before I was even a teen, and there have been apocalyptic predictions for my entire life.

And there have also been repeated instances of the climate-change purveyors been caught out lying. The breaking point for me was 5-10 years ago, I forget exactly when, when the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University (I think, like I said, a while ago), was caught out destroying their data so that people couldn't realized they lied about climate change being real.

I have heard endless amounts of hysteria, apocalyptic predictions, doom-and-gloom, data that's been proven fraudulent, etc, etc, etc.

I have never heard anyone who was trying to use the issue for political means talk about actual sane ways of dealing with the supposed problem.

I've been told repeatedly to 'educate myself,' back before that phrase was even popularized, and what I've found keeps on bringing it back to how it's clearly a bunch of politically-motivated hokum.

If the climate is going to turn towards uninhabitable within a couple decades, whoooo boy, drastic action right now is not just justified, but essential, so why don't you give (insert candidate name here) and the government power to control your entire damned life for the good of all?

Except that all, as in every single one I have heard of of the big-name celebrities and politicians who get into this shit, are so very clearly not treating the threat like it's real. They still use plenty of energy from the grid, most have multiple cars or government cars, either fly or have private/government jets as suits their maximum affordable personal comfort, many have multiple houses, none of them live like it's actually a serious problem.

So no, I don't buy it. And if someone wants to tell me I've got my head stuck in the sand, I'd invite them to show me some data that doesn't:
A) come from an institution that's been wrong for the last 10-40 years.
B) come from people whose job security depends on their 'research' totally showing that their corporate sponsors are definitely right about this.

If you can do that, then I will take the possibility of human-caused climate change being an actual thing into account again, and start yet another round of research into the issue.


For the meantime, there are much better, much more real environmental issues to deal with, such as:
Accumulation of plastic in the ocean. It's not a massive crippling problem, but it is an actually tangible problem, so why not do more to get a handle on it before it gets worse?
Over-fishing. I've read bits on this sporadically, and keeping both major biomes, and a major food-source, from being depleted seems pretty damned important.
Localized acute pollution problems. Somebody is dumping shit into the river they shouldn't. There's that one stretch of land where people ditch broken appliances. Some old landfills didn't 'close up' properly, and are leaking shit into groundwater that needs to be dealt with. Whatever the specific variety is, actual tangible problems that you can apply actual tangible solutions.

One of the most important factors for real and readily provable problems like this, is that you can tell when the problem is solved, and the project is completed, so there's no further need for funding, political soapboxing about it, etc. Find a problem, solve the problem, move on.

There are real environmental problems out there. There are real issues that need to be solved. The hyper-politicization of global warming/climate change is just distracting from that, for the political gain of certain individuals and parties.

 

[CarlManvers2019]

@LordsFire
Any chance you think using trash as an alternative fuel source or even a building material is a good idea or better way of using trash and thus freeing up whatever land those landfills use for other things?

 

[Bacle]

So, I am what is apparently a rare breed these days; I don't buy the idea that there's such a thing as man-caused climate-change in the first place.

I'm old enough to remember hearing about this stuff back in the 90's. I've been following political matters since before I was even a teen, and there have been apocalyptic predictions for my entire life.

And there have also been repeated instances of the climate-change purveyors been caught out lying. The breaking point for me was 5-10 years ago, I forget exactly when, when the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University (I think, like I said, a while ago), was caught out destroying their data so that people couldn't realized they lied about climate change being real.

I have heard endless amounts of hysteria, apocalyptic predictions, doom-and-gloom, data that's been proven fraudulent, etc, etc, etc.

I have never heard anyone who was trying to use the issue for political means talk about actual sane ways of dealing with the supposed problem.

I've been told repeatedly to 'educate myself,' back before that phrase was even popularized, and what I've found keeps on bringing it back to how it's clearly a bunch of politically-motivated hokum.

If the climate is going to turn towards uninhabitable within a couple decades, whoooo boy, drastic action right now is not just justified, but essential, so why don't you give (insert candidate name here) and the government power to control your entire damned life for the good of all?

Except that all, as in every single one I have heard of of the big-name celebrities and politicians who get into this shit, are so very clearly not treating the threat like it's real. They still use plenty of energy from the grid, most have multiple cars or government cars, either fly or have private/government jets as suits their maximum affordable personal comfort, many have multiple houses, none of them live like it's actually a serious problem.

So no, I don't buy it. And if someone wants to tell me I've got my head stuck in the sand, I'd invite them to show me some data that doesn't:
A) come from an institution that's been wrong for the last 10-40 years.
B) come from people whose job security depends on their 'research' totally showing that their corporate sponsors are definitely right about this.

If you can do that, then I will take the possibility of human-caused climate change being an actual thing into account again, and start yet another round of research into the issue.


For the meantime, there are much better, much more real environmental issues to deal with, such as:
Accumulation of plastic in the ocean. It's not a massive crippling problem, but it is an actually tangible problem, so why not do more to get a handle on it before it gets worse?
Over-fishing. I've read bits on this sporadically, and keeping both major biomes, and a major food-source, from being depleted seems pretty damned important.
Localized acute pollution problems. Somebody is dumping shit into the river they shouldn't. There's that one stretch of land where people ditch broken appliances. Some old landfills didn't 'close up' properly, and are leaking shit into groundwater that needs to be dealt with. Whatever the specific variety is, actual tangible problems that you can apply actual tangible solutions.

One of the most important factors for real and readily provable problems like this, is that you can tell when the problem is solved, and the project is completed, so there's no further need for funding, political soapboxing about it, etc. Find a problem, solve the problem, move on.

There are real environmental problems out there. There are real issues that need to be solved. The hyper-politicization of global warming/climate change is just distracting from that, for the political gain of certain individuals and parties.

I want to say, while I do believe that humans have not CAUSED 'global warming/climate change' we have certainly ACCELERATED natural processes that would have warmed the globe over centuries or millennia instead of decades.

However, your sceptisism is actually healthy, and your reasons for it are justified. There has certainly been an alarmist bent to many environmental decrees and data, but you need to understand it is NOT all politically or financially motivated. I've seen the data with my own eyes, and seen the real world effects in my travels, and have had access to data most average Joe's simply cannot afford to access. Paywalled academic databases are where much of the hard data lies, but because it costs hundreds of dollars to access (unless you are a student at an institution that pays for the access) most people never see it.

Issues with plastic and fisheries are rather easy to analyze and for the normal person to understand. Pollution is easy to see, thus easy to address. 'Global warming/climate change' is far harder for the average person to observe the effects of.

But there is a simple way to show why we are getting warmer on the whole: less snow and ice packs to reflect sunlight, more dark ocean and land that absorb heat. It's a matter of albedo, or color+based heat absorption, and that is something that should be easier to see for the normal person via things like Google Earth or just looking at local conditions during winter.

I have to go into work soon, otherwise I'd go into more detail.

 

[LordsFire]

@LordsFire
Any chance you think using trash as an alternative fuel source or even a building material is a good idea or better way of using trash and thus freeing up whatever land those landfills use for other things?

It's been a while, but I recall reading about some interesting applications thereof, particularly for a couple sites (I believe the first test-build was somewhere in Florida) where they were burning trash in bulk, and when they burned it hot enough, they both 'burned down' waste gasses to fairly harmless stuff, and generated appreciable amounts of electricity out of it. They might have been getting useful melted metals out of the burn process too, but I can't remember for sure, and it's been more than ten years.

It's certainly something generally worth exploring more.

But there is a simple way to show why we are getting warmer on the whole: less snow and ice packs to reflect sunlight, more dark ocean and land that absorb heat. It's a matter of albedo, or color+based heat absorption, and that is something that should be easier to see for the normal person via things like Google Earth or just looking at local conditions during winter.

I have to go into work soon, otherwise I'd go into more detail.

Funny, the area I live in just had a new all-time record high amount of snow; over thirty feet last Winter. We then immediately thereafter had the warmest Summer I've ever experienced in the area. Funny how that came back-to-back.

 

[Bacle]

Funny, the area I live in just had a new all-time record high amount of snow; over thirty feet last Winter. We then immediately thereafter had the warmest Summer I've ever experienced in the area. Funny how that came back-to-back.

That's actually not that odd; if you are in areas subject to El Nino you can have blistering summers followed by record winters.

That however doesn't detract from the fact that the less snow and ice on the planet to reflect sunlight, the hotter it will be on average. That's not even getting into the salinity/lack of salinity problems in the ocean that large amounts of previously frozen fresh water can cause.

This shit is complex, and that's why I do not hold it against people to be sceptical regarding environmental issues.

 

[ShadowsOfParadox]

less snow and ice

I'd need to go looking but I'm pretty sure I've seen some satellite imagery showing a net increase in polar ice caps.

 

[Bigking321]

Snip

Just wanted to say you pretty much nailed it with this post.

When I was growing up it felt like environmental issues were just common sense problems and solutions.

Something going extinct? Conservation groups.

Some companies polluting in sleazy ways? Get the laws changed in relevant ways to stop it.

Some kind of unnatural disaster damaging the environment. Try to get it cleaned up.

Simple. Easy for everyone to agree on.

Now everything is so political and is used as a weapon instead of just common cause.

Especially when it's a potential global problem like climate change (man made or natural) no one is seriously trying to solve anything and its main use is as a bludgeon against political enemies.