|
Post by Don on Feb 11, 2019 8:44:48 GMT -5
Let's up the ante, so to speak: www.cnn.com/2019/02/11/health/insect-decline-study-intl/index.htmlObviously, we need to stop killing insects, across the board. Would that mean a lot more people might catch diseases from insect bites and potentially die? Sure. Would that mean a potential drop in the world food supply and an increased likelihood of starvation? Sure. But it's okay, because we're just slaves to an unknown future... Microplastics in the food chain will get us before the insects are all gone. Thanks to FedGov for leading us down the path to petro-plastics by colluding with Big Oil to remove hemp-based plastics from the marketplace shortly after Henry Ford discovered their practicality. See, hemp-based plastics are naturally bio-degradable.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Feb 11, 2019 12:06:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Don on Feb 11, 2019 13:03:20 GMT -5
One study about consmetic microbeads has been retracted. But according to Scientific American reporting last fall, that's not the whole of the problem.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Feb 11, 2019 13:41:57 GMT -5
One study about consmetic microbeads has been retracted. But according to Scientific American reporting last fall, that's not the whole of the problem. Sure, but the claims in that article about effects on food chain are speculative, not data-driven. I'll be more convinced when they can present some convincing data (that's not to say that there is no effect; I just want to see the numbers).
|
|
|
Post by Don on Feb 13, 2019 6:38:09 GMT -5
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana Two examples from history for your consideration.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Feb 13, 2019 8:57:17 GMT -5
Here's a pro-GND op-ed from a law clerk and a Yale economist: thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/429652-green-new-deal-is-good-economicsFrom it: Riiiiiight... Here's why it's "good economics": Ah, a sin tax with a goal! And: How is it possible that--in 2018--supposed economists are still thinking like this, operating under the assumption that innovation proceeds from a government directive, first and foremost? Then there's this: A false dichotomy, to be sure: it's not the GND or nothing, as a matter of course. And one last bit of fantasy: Right, "smart policy design" will avoid waste and favoritism. Why has no one ever seen this before, it's just so obvious!
|
|
|
Post by Don on Feb 19, 2019 6:11:33 GMT -5
I can't even with some of the economic prattle coming from supporters of this march to authoritarianism.
Hayek was too specific when he said "If socialists understood economics, they wouldn't be socialists." Central planners of all stripes, socialist and nationalist, have the same basic economic misunderstandings. They believe in "Intelligent Design" applied to a chaotic, fractal system. It didn't work environmentally, as everybody should be well aware by now, and it doesn't work socially or economically. Society and the economy are organic structures, not mechanistic. Just as with plants and animals, institutions that fail to adapt, die. We're seeing many institutional death throes today.
The GND is the mental equivalent of trying to garden with a set of wrenches and screwdrivers. It's the wrong tools for the project at hand.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Feb 21, 2019 6:48:37 GMT -5
So I'm not the only one noticing the correlation between "Intelligent Design" and the plans of the GND... Are Green New Dealers Evolution Deniers? The answer is a resounding yes!, although it extends far beyond GND to central planning in general. Yet AOC and her supporters, like so many that came before, are either woefully or willfully ignorant of the settled science and claim that they can perform feats that science has clearly shown cannot be accomplished. Wrench-wielders in the garden. Are you still supporting the wrench-wielders in the garden? Can you explain to me why? Given that the science is settled, I'd like to hear a scientific, economic defense of the GND. I figure I'll hear crickets.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Feb 22, 2019 16:57:37 GMT -5
Green New Deal is feasible and affordableRead the piece. To say it's pie-in-the-sky nonsense is unfair to actual pie-in-the-sky nonsense. And at what point do these ivory-towered clowns face up to some simple realities: the world needs ditch-diggers just as much as it needs any white-collar jobs.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Feb 22, 2019 18:10:21 GMT -5
I wonder if they think all these grandiose schemes will be achieved by dedicated groups of local volunteers, or if they realize that all these grandiose schemes will be planned by government, but carried out by the same corporations that own the regulators today?
And somebody should tell them that there are already huge books of regulations dedicated to preserving the status quo, written by the same legislators they claim can fix the problem, and paid for by existing companies to prevent exactly the type of widespread and accelerated innovation they're calling for, paid for by huge corporations and the one percent attempting to hold on to the top of the pyramid. There's going to need to be a shit-ton of creative destruction done if innovation is going to come roaring along.
I tried building green in 1997-1999, and the tech was ready. Federal, state and local regulations made building green financially illogical, though, because codes required building a house just like they had been built for generations, and making full use of all the utilities they chose to provide. That meant 12 volt AND 120 volt, composting / grey water treatment AND conventional septic tank, passive and active solar AND conventional electric or gas heat, etc.
Sensibly, I built a conventional home.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Feb 23, 2019 8:41:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Don on Feb 23, 2019 9:22:03 GMT -5
Oh, FFS. Kids spouting talking points, righteous in their indignation when faced with reality. More proof that John Adams was right. (not Churchill, although that bogus quote is more readable) “A boy of 15 who is not a democrat is good for nothing, and he is no better who is a democrat at 20.” As for the person who posted that video, one person's condescension is another person't unassailable logic, IMO. I can't believe I'm taking Feinstein's side, though. I particularly liked the "you need to energize your base." (by going way to the left and leaving the massive middle to Trump) This developing split could work to the right's advantage, though. Could Feinstein's stance eventually lose her seat to a challenger from the left, given it's California? That would hurt the Dems a bunch, I think. The developing split is evident in the comments on that video.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Feb 23, 2019 15:02:09 GMT -5
Why was it not her best moment? I very much agreed with her. There was a fair amount of arrogance by those challenging her. I especially loved her “my way or the highway” comment. She’s one of the old guard Dems who can see the many problems with this new wave of ignorant hyperidealistic uncompromising socialists attempting to take over her party. I agree with Don; this is a real problem for the Dems.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Feb 23, 2019 15:09:22 GMT -5
They were kids. Telling them their opinions don't matter because they haven't voted wasn't the best approach, in my view.
FWIW, "not her best moment" is not the same thing as "horribly awful from her." As I said, it was unfair to her--imo--to stage this kind of moment, to have a bunch of kids accosting her verbally.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Feb 23, 2019 15:17:41 GMT -5
|
|