Community >> View Post
Post By
The Avenger

Location: New Jersey
Member Since: Thu Dec 02, 2021
In Reply To
bd2999 
Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Subj: Re: Illiberal upstarts reinvent conservatism
Posted: Tue May 17, 2022 at 01:47:36 pm EDT (Viewed 155 times)
Reply Subj: Re: Illiberal upstarts reinvent conservatism
Posted: Mon May 16, 2022 at 09:01:32 pm EDT (Viewed 153 times)



    Quote:
    It is more that important issues rarely get much of any real movement. And the underlying issues rarely if ever get addressed. An individual can do good things but unless some things are taken on at a national sort of level many problems will linger and potentially fester. Which is where I see the pessimism. And that usually infests local politics as well.



Solving issues completely is what I mean by perfection. It has never existed, does not now exist, and never will. No major issue in human culture will ever be solved completely. Acknowledging that is what I mean by realistic pessimism. Realistic optimism is acknowledging that some aspects of life will improve for some people in some places at some periods of time, and then deciding whether to expend one's energy, money, and time in the name of such possibilities.

It suddenly occurs to me that what I'm advocating is a Serenity Prayer philosophy. Changeable? Boldly attempt it. Unchangeable? Serenely accept it. Which path in a given instance? Apply the wisdom of experience, one's own and that of humanity's long history, which means, be realistic.

If the unchangeable dwarfs the changeable, what of it? Apply the philosophy regardless.



    Quote:
    I suppose, but I generally am looking at it as not expecting much of anything particularly useful from federal and state governments that is not just a band aid at the present.



With regard to the federal government, you're right. With regard to state governments, I guarantee the overturning of Roe v. Wade will trigger immediate action in all 50 states. Whether you like what gets done will depend on what your values are, and which state you live in.

I value the freedom to be left alone and I live in New Jersey, so I will be pleased.



    Quote:

      Quote:
      Why does the environment matter to you? What's the core value? There may be more than one, for you. From what you say above, human health is one core value underpinning your environmentalism. Is it the only one or are there others?


    It would probably be summed up in something like preservation I guess. With regards to preservation of the natural world. There are alot of reasons to do it, but honestly I think it is worth it for its own sake in addition to the sheer fact that it is hard for many other issues to matter if you do not have a world worth living in.



That's a good articulation. Preserving the environment is, for you, (1) an end in itself and (2) the prerequisite for many other ends, like, presumably, mitigating world hunger. Being able to say things clearly is important.



    Quote:
    I mean some things I think would be important to live by on any level would be curiosity, empathy, integrity, equality, equity, health, discovery, individuality and respect. I would add the preservation in there as well but I mentioned it already.



That's a good list. A person could develop an ethos around a list like that.

Is there a practical difference between curiosity and discovery? Between equality and equity?



    Quote:

      Quote:
      Environmentalism was becoming a stable, normalized concern in America, where reasonable people on both sides of the question could find a balanced middle ground - and then global warming took over green activism, and suddenly we were back to an unstable, abnormal polarity of extremes, with one side wanting to dismantle modern civilization to save endangered species, while the other side seems hellbent on ignoring green concerns entirely, since no compromise seems possible. Whenever we see politics polarizing us with no possibility of compromise, we can be sure we're being manipulated.


    I disagree with this, at least with the phrasing. As this is not an idea of both sides are purely to blame. It more or less breaks down that we only have one political party that acknowledges or cares much about the problem in even a lip service way.



Yes, but that party has a contingent who would dismantle civilization without blinking an eye. A good articulation of their insane philosophy is found here:
https://deepgreenresistance.org/



    Quote:
    For the most part the biggest drivers of climate denial are the same that drive alot of science denial. It tends to be those with what I consider an unreasonable degree of dislike for regulation of any sort and those seeking to avoid being hampered economically. After those balls are rolling though it does become part of political identity.



True. The fossil fuel industry has been selling out the biosphere in the name of profits.



    Quote:
    I am honestly open to many proposals but there are not serious ones and the problem is the longer it goes the worse it gets and more drastic measures are required. Were efforts taken decades ago smaller changes would be needed. At some point drastic changes would be required if one sought to avoid the worst impacts.



Atomic energy is one part of a coherent strategy, yet many on the left have an irrational fear of it.



    Quote:

      Quote:

      The first step toward finding solutions will be to categorically reject a no-compromise mentality on either side of the question. Dismantling civilization is out of the question. Allowing a mass extinction event is likewise out of the question. Compromise is mandatory. The enemy of progress is the no-compromise mentality. It must be quashed.


    I am not sure. I do think at this point more drastic action is required than what would have been ten or twenty years ago. I do not think it takes the world changing but the later we get the worse it is.



Drastic change may be needed but tearing down civilization and starting again from scratch must be unequivocally off the table, as that would be too drastic.



    Quote:
    And no action, the easiest action, leads to mass extinctions. I mean that is the path we are likely already on. The Great Barrier Reef alone is doing very poorly.



It is, I agree, and I certainly acknowledge that doing nothing is the cowardly, foolish path. I would counsel a major reinvestment in atomic energy.



    Quote:
    I honestly would love it if there were conservative, liberal and other points of view on dealing with the problem being discussed but it often never is outside of scientific literature and occasional news articles.



Conservatives want a reinvestment in atomic energy.



    Quote:
    Sure, I am not against freedom. I just think the irony of freedom is that when you have it, the rest of the fights are what it is to keep it and what it means for different groups. As our modern idea of freedom is different than in other places and times.



The fights never end. The only variable is whether these fights take the form of negotiation or warfare, and if the latter, to what extent.

The reason freedom must constantly be renegotiated is this: Power is constantly looking for new arenas in which to ruthlessly dominate.



    Quote:
    In political terms there is a growing authoritarian movement in the US and threats to elections (not acknowledging election results). It is part of their freedom to do it I guess to a point but it threatens the nature of democracy and freedom.



Authoritarianism is anti-freedom and must be resisted by a freedom-loving people with every resource available.



    Quote:
    I mean I guess in general that would be right but there do need to be protections for the minority. Equality and the like or starting from the same place to actual have it mean something. Otherwise it can lead to oppression quickly. In general though, sure I think the majority should rule in a system within reason. It is more frustrating when a minority can rule society.



No minority should rule at all, and no majority should rule without checks and balances.



    Quote:
    I also find one of the great tragedies of the US to be the low participation rate. I get it. Although I always vote and am in a state that never goes my way but I always do. Between gerrymandering and demographics I am meaningless, but too stubborn to do anything else.



I support the ideas that (1) voting day should be a national holiday and (2) voting should be mandatory. I know the second point seems anti-freedom but in the long run it's pro-freedom, because more people voting means more voices being heard, which improves the validity of the vote, and makes crazy anti-freedom outcomes harder to achieve. Free country or not, sometimes doing what's pro-freedom in the long run must be forced upon the populace.