Comments J4zonian has made

"should satisfy the nuclear industry"

but it won't. orthodox economics doesn't recognize it as a disease when it says economic desires are endless (they know how to cure that now--the Buddhists and the Reichian psychologists do) but at least it describes the symptoms accurately. It's not about rationality; wanting to take over everything and leave it covered with our metaphorical bowel movements is also a symptom.

What world do you think we're living in, where industry does unprofitable things and doesn't try to get away with everything they can? where they do things honestly and safely? They are full of rage and don't want to do things safely; I don't see how we need any more evidence than what they've been doing for 50 years to recognize that. And conservatives' (and our inner conservatives') answer to everything is to punish; that results not in stopping bad behavior but in making it sneaky and resentful.

Nukes are not the answer. Coal and oil are not the answer. Wind, solar and conservation are. On Superb NYT story captures both coal's peril and the barriers to its elimination posted 9 months, 1 week ago 38 Responses

Ted,

I didn't mean science is democracy; only that compared to warlord religion, business and government it sees authority in many different sources rather than one, or a few in a patriarchal hierarchy. We are never completely equal, as in (theoretical, ideal) balloting; but authority is derived from perceived ability to see truth, which is available in theory to everyone, and to be respected in everyone, not a priori to some via a position in a family-reproducing structure. It is because we are not certain that science must be democratic, i.e. open to all, and respectful. The many amateur and semi-pro scientists who have contributed to scientific advancement are evidence of that--from Mendel to the Brahe/Bruno/Copernicus/Galileo revolution to the work of Faraday and Lorenzo Langstroth.

The work of George Lakoff (with some psychological refinements) is relevant--the conservative view is `people are bad' and alone, the world is dangerous and we need to be disciplined and protected by daddy. The liberal view is `people are good' or with potential to be good if nurtured (especially physio-psychologically), which leads to the belief in deep connection to others, including non-humans. Of course it's more complicated and people and all institutions are mixes and have other things going on. Religious liberals tend to be involved with democratic religions, where each person is, to various degrees depending on religion, his/her own authority in relation to god. Not an either/or but a continuum, with the other end putting all authority in a book, person or hierarchy as the interpreter of god. Those conservatives who are not religious believers tend to project the same authority into business, government...or even a hierarchical "science".

Science is neither democracy nor consensus, since consensus is a specific agreement on a particular way to make decisions in a defined group, and good science never does come to one agreed-on truth. ("As soon as you say `I understand' you cut yourself off from understanding."--Frank Herbert) Science depends on freedom of speech--allowing all views into the public forum--which it does imperfectly, obviously. To the extent that it is `democratic' and not hierarchical and father-oriented it is still science and not `religion', to use the term very broadly.

Yes, out of the differences come disagreements on what freedom is, and how we should rule; the perceived fascist-like behavior of the left is the following of science, reason and connection, while conservatives currently see that as an encroachment on what they see as their individuality (and what I think of as their maladaptive aloneness--an attachment disorder from childhood. And again--way, way more complicated than this can say. Issues and positions shift and meld and reverse in quite bizarre ways. Just look at how much of their otherwise absent compassion for children some conservatives project into fetuses, while many liberals don't. Contradictions for both, but perfectly consistent with the complexities of psychology. Everybody splits. Everybody responds to their unconscious desires. Polar bear numbers may or may not reflect immediate short-term danger of extinction but their position near the North Pole makes them vulnerable, and liberals' concern for them is a 1. reflection of connection to them, 2. projection into cute cuddly things, and 3. projected fear for ourselves--deserved fear at that.

Of course one can never be sure of another's motives--we can hardly be sure of our own, at least until extensive self-investigation has been done. While we shouldn't be saying we are sure, since we're not, the more people understand climate science the more time pressure and direness they feel, and the more strident they become. Our own maladaptive neurosis. Which was my point about not causing despair...

Decades of economic devastation have been caused not by ecological protections (of ecosystems, not owls--another example of seeing things not as separate but in webs of connection); they've been caused by neoconservative policies valuing license over freedom--the unfettered allowance of accumulation, by a few supposedly-deserving people, of the interchangeable commodities money and power. They're the ways conservatives try to get relief from the fear, grief and rage they feel at being so alone.

Of course, that's only theory. I don't know for sure. Unfortunately, our lack of drive for money and power means we have a hard time getting our version of the truth out to the public, and even when we do it's, as we agree, the wrong message. Certainty is counterproductive; we need to say `if things go this way... this is what will happen...' not `this is what will happen'.

I worry about how little time we have left to save everything, with parties splitting power, sabotaging each other, lying and demagoging and deadlocking progress. For one thing, what happens if we're just successful enough to delay the most obvious, visible and memorable things we've predicted without actually stopping the process? It's a way to keep the debate going right up to the end.

I certainly don't mean to pathologize conservatives and apologize for liberals. We have our own pathologies. And until we heal ours, allowing us to help them heal theirs, we will continue to act out of our respective unconsciousness and cause the world continued pain and destruction.

PS: Not much of a Freud fan; more of a Jungianesque neo-Reichian.
On What will shift the public's attitudes on climate change? posted 9 months, 1 week ago 21 Responses

GRLCowan

Your analogy is to truth as tobacco company studies, global warming denialism and creationism are to science.

Certain parts, processes, training, money and mindsets are shared by nuclear power and weapons, and getting rid of one will make the other more expensive, less attractive, and less available. Plus...

EITHER nuclear power will continue to rely on existing fuels, which will run out soon, even with the small amount of energy that nukes provide now (and obviously, the more reactors we build the faster it will run out)

OR it will come to rely on breeder reactors, and absolutely will become a factor in the proliferation of weapons. (All the while causing cancer, destroying economic democracy, and sucking up capital that could be far better used for true alternatives). On Superb NYT story captures both coal's peril and the barriers to its elimination posted 9 months, 1 week ago 38 Responses

A great bunch of suggestions!

Much better than this:

www.chelseagreen.com/content/index.php?p=1898

I'd change the order (vegetarianism at the top, gardening second) and I'd add 'political action to make our food/ag system healthier', as it will also will make you healthier, as depression and despair and all the physical problems that go with them (decreased immune functioning, eg) are reduced by action. And btw, both vegetarianism and gardening count as political action, though they aren't enough alone. Giving money to your political opponents (corporations) doesn't make sense, and any way to avoid that is a leap forward.

But that couponing? It's far more likely to waste money, buying things corporations want you to buy that you don't need or want. Even though you save a few cents, in a whole systems approach, you spend more dollars. On How to maintain a green, healthy diet on a budget posted 9 months, 3 weeks ago 17 Responses

Sean, et al,

But... We don't have to plan and manage punctuated equilibrium; it runs haltingly along just fine on its own, although we may be about to punctuate it more completely than it's ever been punctuated before... Climate change, on the other hand, has to be understood by enough people to vote into office (and then ride hard) changemakers, as Obama thankfully seems to be--so far. (Congress and most state and local govts., corporations and individuals lag far behind) We need to educate people about the various choices and--what a concept for us--about the unconscious causes and ecological and social results of our actions.

I don't believe the problem is that people don't care; that's an apparent symptom caused by psychological problems (society-wide trauma, eg.) that make people cut themselves off from the parts of them that do care, because to care is too scary, infuriating, depressing, hopeless, or painful. Self-absorbed lives are about distracting ourselves from those lurking emotions and the knowledge that causes them; not the problem itself, and changing the lives can't happen until people are slowly and gently made less afraid of the emotions.

Yes, we have to get people outside; we also have to be able to sit in bars and talk about--maybe not soil carbon levels but human and other natural phenomenon in a way that excites curiosity and fans embers of it that haven't been snuffed out by a terrible education system. I'm with archigeek, but that's only one part of what we need. Try this: there is an iridescent species of bee, in the Euglossine (good-tongued) family that makes a sound of a certain pitch when it hovers. Only that sound opens a certain orchid that the bee specializes in, so the bee can get its nectar, and coincidentally transfer pollen from that orchid to the next one it visits, helping the orchid reproduce. Doesn't that get your sense of wonder going? Doesn't that make you less likely to do things that would kill the bee and the orchid?
On Americans' climate change doubts aren't hard to understand posted 10 months ago 10 Responses

but Peter,

about the same percentage of people in the US don't believe in geologic time
(interpreted from the results of one poll: www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=581  )
so i don't think the wording of the question is the problem. On Grist grades the best/worst in climate change news posted 10 months ago 2 Responses

bailsout, enkio,

Of course reducing the population is important, as is Pickens' reRepublicanization. But I'm curious how you're going to reduce population; it's going to take generations and by that time civilization will have ended and the pop. reduced by excessively cruel means. We do need to argue--and win--over renewables so the reduction can happen on our terms, and the Republicans won't let that happen if they have anything to say about it. But more important than that, we need to focus on the fact that the people from whom we get our eco news don't know the difference between clench and clinch. Doesn't that make you afraid for our future? On An interview with Bob Barr about his presidential platform on energy and the environment posted 1 year, 2 months ago 3 Responses

vinylavoidance

Come on, isn't this a sign (even Umbra's answer) that we're so far from being healthy we don't even think about making our own music? As someone (George Carlin? Jerry Mander?) said, "Once you turn it off there are an infinite number of channels to choose from." Although we probably do it badly some places you can certainly find toxin-free violin-, guitar- and flute-manufacturing, and the off-gassing of singing along with your Rise Up Singing songbook is minimal and can be taken care of with a few Impeachmints. Look beyond. If you don't know the hands who made the product, boycott it.  On Umbra on vinyl records posted 1 year, 9 months ago 10 Responses