The Sam Spade Memorial Good Post Gallery

[politicus]

One of those times where a single word answer is no good.

Nobody died at Three Mile Island. Security measures even in 1970s standard worked. It's like pointing to a BMW accident where everyone survived as proof that BMWs are unsafe.

Fossil fuels have significant direct mortality rates associated to them where as nuclear is 0. A lot of the fear of nuclear power comes from the misconception that it has anything to do with a nuclear bomb. Nuclear power plant reactors and nuclear bombs are like comparing apples with apple-flavored Jolly Ranchers.  Blowing up a nuclear power plant cannot cause a mushroom cloud.

Even if we want to go into indirect deaths (estimations of how many people will die of cancer from radiation leaked at Fukishama), it still pales in comparison to the indirect deaths in the mining of precious metals in Africa that compose solar panels.  Or environmental displacement by hydroelectric dam construction.

The only energy that is truly environmentally safe is wind and it's wholly inadequate.  In all other scenarios, you are playing a game of risk and the sheer amount of energy nuclear can produce means per accident it's a good deal as a opposed to per accident at an oil rig, a dam, a platinum mine, a coal mine, or a wind turbine manufacturing plant.

In other words, "No."

Not a good post, because it is irrelevant in the context. The issue was not all the things King writes about (most of which I agree with), but the "no" comment (CrabCake objected to single word posts in his crapoposts thread, which is why I challenged you on this one). Kings post actually proves that "no" is a crappy answer. If you had started with writing something similar to Kings post everything would be fine.

EDIT: Besides leaving out the issue of nuclear waste when dealing with the hazards of nuclear energy makes it not a good post.

[politicus]

Lol...you're really in a bubble of eco delusion, lady.

My argument is quite rational.  Increasing quality of life can be achieved by technological innovation and/or economic growth.

Economic growth is achieved either by productivity increases or population growth.

The major driver for increasing quality of life can then be partially explained by a growing population given ample access to required resources.

Technology and innovation are making resource use far more efficient.

Labor force growth is negative in nearly all of Europe now.  That is a drag on economic growth, which puts a drag on quality of life.  Both productivity growth and population growth have slowed or reversed.  So economic growth isn't a thing anymore in Europe.  Only technology advances improve quality of life now.  If you can afford them with your dwindling resources as returns on economic activity dwindle.

The state of small rural towns in rural Germany today is a preview of what all but the most important cities will be in 20 years without major restructuring...and where they'll get the money to pay for that restructuring, no one knows which is why the rural towns have been allowed to decay rather than save some of them.

Empty shop windows...empty apartment buildings...decaying infrastructure...a patchwork of teardowns since people tend not to die in a geographically orderly fashion...

Communities will just revert backwards to less developed states.

You can deny it..but your future isn't very bright in Europe and its attitudes like yours that brought it on.

Perhaps this could go into the sulfur mine but it seems too thoughtful. Either way it eviscerates the ridiculous idea that "negative population growth is a good thing".

"Good" is not really the appropriate term. It is a necessary thing. There is a limited maximum capacity for how large a population the earth can sustain. That is just common sense. The natural world is the basis for our economy, not the other way round. Economic arguments can not eradicate ecological necessity.

The burden of proof is on those who seriously imagine that the human population can grow forever. That is truly an irrational idea.

[politicus]

But that capacity is not simply a function of the size of the earth or whatnot, now is it? It's also- and more importantly- a function of technology levels. That capacity is not constant.

No of course not, but that does not mean it will ever be unlimited and the lower level we stop population growth on, the easier it will be to secure a sustainable world. Natural resources like fresh water, minerals and agricultural soil are limited and technological fixes can not compensate for everything.

Demographers estimate word population stabilization around 2100. We have recently reached peak child (max population 0-15). So there will be fewer children from now on. Handling a society with more old people than children is a necessary transitional phase for humanity, that we need to make the best of.

Even if you do not care about room for other species (which I very much do) and accelerated climate change, there are limits to human population. Thinking otherwise is highly irrational.

[politicus]

So stopping as soon as possible is always the best option? So we would have been better off if we had stopped last year, or ten years ago... or in 10,000 B.C.?

No of course not to the last one, but in the present situation it clearly is important to stabilize global population at as low a level as possible. The lower level, the more natural resources per capita.

The current situation is unique in human history. Never before has billions of people had an ambition of pursuing a consumerist life style and a realistic chance of acquiring one. That is in itself fine, but we are depleting resources at a very fast rate and as populations swell, resource depletion will be exacerbated. At the same time we are facing a climate crisis that reduces important resources like agricultural soil.
Scientists predict that we'll "need to produce as much food in the next 40 years as we have in the last 8,000. That is a very tall order. A fast growing, more affluent population competing for ever scarcer resources is a problematic scenario. No technological fix is likely to counter that.

As a sidenote: For me the fact that half the worlds wildlife has gone in the last 40 years play a role as well. A world where there is only room for a few species is a tragedy and unethical.

[politicus]

So stopping as soon as possible is always the best option? So we would have been better off if we had stopped last year, or ten years ago... or in 10,000 B.C.?

No of course not to the last one, but in the present situation it clearly is important to stabilize global population at as low a level as possible. The lower level, the more natural resources per capita.

The current situation is unique in human history. Never before has billions of people had an ambition of pursuing a consumerist life style and a realistic chance of acquiring one. That is in itself fine, but we are depleting resources at a very fast rate and as populations swell, resource depletion will be exacerbated. At the same time we are facing a climate crisis that reduces important resources like agricultural soil.
Scientists predict that we'll "need to produce as much food in the next 40 years as we have in the last 8,000. That is a very tall order. A fast growing, more affluent population competing for ever scarcer resources is a problematic scenario. No technological fix is likely to counter that.

As a sidenote: For me the fact that half the worlds wildlife has gone in the last 40 years play a role as well. A world where there is only room for a few species is a tragedy and unethical.

So what? What use is that if we have the technology? The reality of the misery of population decline, meanwhile, strikes again:

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/how-the-maritimes-became-canadas-incredible-shrinking-region/

What is the "that" you are refering to?

(and please respond in a separate thread..)

[politicus]

Politicus is correct here, I think. It's very easy to shriek NEO MALTHUSIAN LOL though, so.

e: Or not even so much that she's correct as that I dislike the tendency to dismiss any and all concerns about population growth as outdated hysteria.

Well, you still have it as something that is debatable and that puzzles me. Besides it being logical that a finite world can not sustain an infinite number of people it seems almost all experts on this (population biologists and sociobiologosits) basically agree that the Earth has a maximum carrying capacity of about 9-10 billion people and that "the constraints of the biosphere are fixed."

The main problems are:

- limited availability of freshwater
- constraints on the amount of food that Earth can produce

The present 3.5 billion acres of arable land would support about 10 billion people and we look set to lose a lot of arable land as a result of climate change (and soil erosion caused by deforestation etc.). This is with all grain going to human consumption. It is not that I do not believe in agrotech improvements, but they need to be extreme to get higher than 10 billion given all the land we lose and the unlikelyhood of most people going vegetarian.

If everyone ate as Americans do the current 2 billion tons of grains annually would only feed 2.5 billion and most people want to have a Western consumerist lifestyle.

Even if you could magically create enough food you would still need to produce an adequate supply of freshwater - a resorce that increasingly gets polluted.

Other environmental factors that limit the Earth's carrying capacity:

- the nitrogen cycle
- available quantities of phosphorus
- atmospheric carbon concentrations

Even if nobody knows the exact maximum created be these things, it is still obvious that they do create a limit.

Anyway, fortunately world population has already reached peak child and we look set to land at 10 billion - which is manageable - around 2100. With relatively slow growh after 2050. It is just that any reversion of this trend it will be dangerous (and there are some signs that this pattern may not hold). But the point is we already need quite a lot of tech fixes to get us to 10 billion sustainability.

Plus some of us would really like a bit of wildlife and wilderness to survive. If we need to use every availavble resource to survive diversity is out the window.

[politicus]

Hillary Fans Society of Mutual Support is at work here, I see.

you got owned kaljetw, don't sulk about it

I wish. "Got owned (by)" and "Beet" does not belong in the same sentence. Keep searching, my friend

Well, this time he did own you. Congrats Beet.

[politicus]

I've met a few IRL (including a nursing student, haha) since I have a friend who is a libertarian and I briefly went to one of their social occasions. Based on that, I'd say that the reason there are few female libertarians is because the kind of guys who are attracted to libertarianism are often drawn towards anti-feminism, anti-social justice - to use the cliche, "fedora" culture. Since so many libertarians are drawn to their politics through the internet their discourse also tends to embody the abrasive, competitive, pseudo-intellectual and yet socially tone-deaf mode of debate that is so pervasive online - and off-putting to many women.

Also women (due to discrimination) are disproportionally likely to be the vulnerable of society, and thus are far less likely to be attracted to the "sink or swim" ideology of libertarianism. This is probably the reason for the absence of people of colour as libertarians -- and the reason why all the libertarian women I met were privileged white girls.

[politicus]

This may not be an effortpost, but it is always nice to see someone answer a question that is normally simplified into absurdity in a rational and accurate manner:

I have to say other. I'm taking the question literally and separating it from the question of when do human rights begin.

During the first 15 days after fertilization the cells of the zygote remain undifferentiated. It is in this period that the zygote can split in two forming identical twins. A split does not always result in twins, since undifferentiated cells can come loose from the zygote and not develop further. Around the 16th day the cells of the zygote differentiate into three layers (segmentation) and twinning becomes impossible. It is also by the point of differentiation that most non-viable genetic combinations (including interspecies zygotes) fail to survive.

The question of human identity involves an individual. Identical twins are two persons and have two identities. Before segmentation one cannot say with any certainty whether an individual exists or if there will be more than one. If human life begins at fertilization, when does life begin for an identical twin? One can't say that a second individual occurs when cells split from the zygote, since that often doesn't result in a twin. It is only when both parts of a split zygote become segmented that one can say that two individuals exist. So, it seems the earliest point one can identify a new human individual is at segmentation.

[politicus]

This is one of the best posts I've seen here in a while.

"Does an ethnic group have a right to a national homeland?"

No.


No ethnic group "deserves" anything. If an ethnic group can "deserve" a state, then you can also say an ethnic group "deserves" punishment for something.

The end result is Segregation. A splintered world with a country for each arbitrary ethno/cultural group. Divide them all up by the groupings that some currently use to classify people, according to some arbitrary criteria. Judging which groups of people do or don't have "legitimate" reasons to have a country. Declaring that some ethnicities and religions couldn't and shouldn't share the same country, because of the >1% violent extremists. Declaring it's a fool's dream to have countries not based on one specific ethnicity/culture/religion. Saying that some ethnicities and religions (defining and judging thousands or millions of individual humans by their association with these classifications) have to live separately until they "learn to play nice." ...

That would be a defeat. A defeat for human rights, a defeat for liberal democracy, a defeat for secularism and interfaith harmony, a defeat for multiculturalism, a defeat for individualism, a defeat for viewing humanity as one people.

You shouldn't establish new states simply because an (or each) ethnicity "deserves" its own state. If one state isn't being multicultural/secular and is oppressing some people, and those people then want to declare an independent state, yes definitely let them and support them. But not because they as an ethnicity "deserve" a state. No ethnicity deserves anything. Their new state should strive to be secular and multicultural, not just replicating the same kind of environment as the country they're trying to secede from, just with a different ethnicity.

We should have countries that aren't officially affiliated with any one segment of the population, but with humanity in general. Allowing all who live in each country to be treated as equals and fully belonging, where no one is discriminated against or excluded. A government/state/country that belongs to a place, not to one particular subgrouping of humanity.

Do you know the path of those who believe that an ethnicity/culture/religion can collectively "deserve" something as an ethnicity/culture/religion? Do you see that such a view would be against individualism, and could swing the other way, saying an entire ethnic/religious/cultural group can "deserve" punishment, or don't "deserve" independence, etc.?

Like I said, if a country is affiliated with one particular group and oppressing another particularly group, and that oppressed group wants independence, I am fine with it. But their new country shouldn't then be affiliated with a particular group either.

For example, Massachusetts versus Rhode Island in colonial times. Puritans felt oppressed in England, so some came to the New World and founded Massachusetts. But as they implemented their theocratic Puritan society, other people felt oppressed under them too, and some were even exiled. One was Roger Williams, who then founded Providence (which became the capital of RI). But instead of repeating the cycle yet again, Roger Williams chose to make Providence a safe haven for people of all creeds: all forms of Christianity, and even Jews, were welcome, and everyone was told they could follow whatever religion they wanted. (Williams even made peace with the Native Americans, legally bought the land from them, and attempted intercultural dialogue and wrote the first Native American dictionary.) Follow the example of colonial Massachusetts and continue the cycle, or follow the example of colonial Rhode Island and break free of the cycle? That's what I'm talking about, when I say no country should be affiliated with a particular culture/religion/ethnicity/whatever.

There is a lot of exaggerations and strawmaning in it, so I can't see why it qualifies as a good post. It is easy to argue against something if you make a caricature of it. A good post require that you argue against your opponents actual positions.

Just to take an example the idea that there could be no non-ethnic states in a world where ethnic groups had a right to a state is quite foolish and obvious hyperbole. The idea is that all ethnic groups have a right to somewhere on earth (a state or autonomous area) where they are in control and constitute a majority, not the dissolution of non-ethnic countries or that everybody should live in the national homelands.

It also implies that there would be no room for minorities in states that constituted a national homeland, which is also very hyperbolic. A national homeland require a solid majority, not ethnic cleansing.

[politicus]

But considering demographic changes that often occur, ethnic cleansing might sometimes be necessary to maintain that solid majority, which is why I find your views problematic.

It still constitutes a clear exaggeration. There are others, like the view of ethnic groups as something constantly floating and arbitrarily defined, whereas ethnic identities are generally quite stable over time once established - and it is logical that nation states and autonomy should only be given to established and well defined ethnicities.

There is no point in discussing the subject here, lets do that in thread later, but this post is clearly not gallery material with the amount of hyperbole and strawmaning in it. It is a decent first draft, but should have been revisited and rewritten after a self critical evaluation of the arguments presented to get to that level.

[politicus]

But considering demographic changes that often occur, ethnic cleansing might sometimes be necessary to maintain that solid majority, which is why I find your views problematic.

It still constitutes a clear exaggeration. There are others, like the view of ethnic groups as something constantly floating and arbitrarily defined, whereas ethnic identities are generally quite stable over time once established - and it is logical that nation states and autonomy should only be given to established and well defined ethnicities.

There is no point in discussing the subject here, lets do that in thread later, but this post is clearly not gallery material with the amount of hyperbole and strawmaning in it. It is a decent first draft, but should have been revisited and rewritten after a self critical evaluation of the arguments presented to get to that level.

I still think it was a great deconstruction of your argument, although it makes sense that you wouldn't agree. But I agree that we should discuss it in the actual thread rather than here.

Not sure you know what that word means.

It even misunderstands what is meant by a national homeland and equates it with a nation state, despite earlier mentioning of regional autonomy as an alternative solution, so even the definition of what he is trying to argue against is flawed.

Anyway, it is best only to put posts in the gallery where you disagree (wholly or partially) with the content, that way you can evaluate the skill used more objectively. If you agree with something you tend to view the arguments in too positive a light. We so-called "simple truths" mine is a testament to that.

[politicus]

Curious what French posters think about this long American Interest article on the Right's history.

It's not too bad a summary, but very simplistic in several ways.

First of all, it's very debatable to say that France is "culturally left-wing" (although I understand why it could seem so to an American public). Politically, the Republican and Radical left enjoyed dominance from 1876 to 1919, but it had stopped being "left-wing" by the first decade of the 20th Century already. Interwar political life saw radicalization on both sides, but no real prevailing side (even the famous "Popular Front" only lasted for a year and half). The 4th Republic saw wild swings in both directions and, as the article notes, the right governed undisturbed for 23 years at the beginning of the 5th Republic (which, by the way, has still not lasted as long as the 3rd one). Intellectually, it's more debatable - of course, like in other European countries, communism dominated academia in the postwar years - but not nearly as clear-cut as the article makes it out to be.

To me, the key characteristic of French politics since roughly the mid-1970s has been conservatism - in the literal sense of the world. Political discourse is very much oriented toward the past and the need to "preserve" things that made France great in the good old days. This, to me, is the reason was France was relatively hostile ground for neoliberalism: the left was able to frame the issue of the Welfare State as a heritage that needed to be preserved from the assault of the radical right. Chirac led a very right-wing (and openly inspired by the Thatcher example) government in 1986-1988. This allowed Mitterrand to present himself as a reasonable elder statesman promising not to upset the existing balance in either direction, allowing him to crush Chirac in the 1988 election. Jospin's 1997 victory wasn't so different, as it built a lot on protest against now-President Chirac's economic reforms. French people generally fear change and want things to stay as they were back when (they believe) everything was going well.

Still, eventually neoliberalism more or less got its way during the 2002-2012 era of right-wing dominance (especially Sarkozy's presidency). And Hollande, since 2012, is largely continuing the same supply-side and anti-welfare policies (while left-wingers enacting right-wing policies is nothing new in many countries, the French left had until now largely resisted 'third-wavization', so this is a significant change in course). This means that France's fear of change and urge to preserve is increasingly focusing on issues of immigration and globalization. Both the right and left played their part in heightening these issues, but the key turning point to me is Sarkozy's 2010 speech in Grenoble. After this point, he fully embraced the FN's rhetoric on immigration, Islam and crime, and his policies toward the end of his term already bordered on State xenophobia (for example, there was a ministerial decree directing businesses to hire French workers over foreigners with the same competences). Talking about the "White race" is only the logical conclusion of this drift, which is encouraged by the fact that the right and FN are united in opposition against Hollande. Honestly, I see little to no difference between them on immigration issues at this point (though there are still huge differences in European and economic policy).