Note to self: Still need work on self-discipline. Long way to go to
enlightenment
ROG,
You silly man. What it is that sucks me into responding to your posts,
when I feel little need to respond to any others, I may never know. I
won't promise that this will be my last correspondence with you, but
like the six microbrews I drank last night, I will hope for more
self-control when indulging in divergent habits in the future.
So, listen up.
I presented some facts that you claim to have benefited from. Well,
praise be to evolution. I then resorted to rhetoric and dogma and
refused to engage you in reasoned arguments. Why? You wonder...
Okay... lets take some of these issues you raise.
You said:
"Interesting comment considering that you are a self-described fatalist
and your Mr. Hanson already seems to have accepted that the future leads
to the
untimely death of billions. Even odder considering that I was providing
a suggestion to the problem that you deemed to be a "a step in the right
direction."
My reasoned response:
To begin with, lets first go back to the statement I made that you are
referring to. On Sat, Aug 3: "I am not really advocating anything. I am
a bit of a fatalist on this topic." To which I followed up with "Nature
will ultimately correct our mistakes. However, if I am wrong and we are
able to make any progress, we first need to change values and belief
systems in America. (Western countries, the northern countries,
developed, whichever you prefer)." Although, I recognize the human need
to categorize everything, lets not be so quick to pigeonhole me into
some belief system or ideology that makes it much easier to
conceptualize an opposing argument. I am not out to build solid walls of
concrete around any argument, knowing full well that it is built on
flimsy foundations. I would rather leave clear paths for opponents to
enter the constructed edifice to blow the whole damn thing up in a
"suicide attack." I find it is easier that way, and I feel less
responsible for the tumultuous aftermath. As to your reference to "your
Mr. Hanson," I seem to recall your doing something similar when I
recommended that you read Jared Diamonds "Guns, Germs, and Steel." By my
Mr. Hanson, you are referring to the Webmaster, Jay Hanson, of the site
I recommended after your inquiry, I presume. I have never read an
article by Jay Hanson. I don't know if he is respected scholar or not.
Perhaps, he is. I do hope that he is, but I suspect that he is a
concerned citizen who keeps a close eye on the global environmental
trends by reading many respected works out of leading scientific
journals. But, I will admit, I am unaware of his background. I do know
that he has put up some of these articles on his website. Rather, than
sending you on a goose chase through your closest local university
library for some scientific journals, I gave you this website. Finally,
your suggestion of renewable fuels IS a step in the right direction,
however you have no understanding of the consequences of such a shift.
To repeat, we cannot support the existing economy, much less a growing
one, without the use of finite stocks of nonrenewable resources.
Economic growth has required the intensification of fossil fuel use
throughout the industrial age; there are no indicators that this trend
has changed. Despite the claims of a few exalting the virtues of an
information economy, fossil fuel use has continued to grow along the
same trajectory as economic growth in every industrialized nation.
ROG:
"To be specific, it is hard to make progress when one starts saying that
"the exploitive powers of "American style" capitalism have led the
nation backward" without defining what one recommends as a superior model,"
My reasoned response:
What is the problem here? Exploitation is exploitation, no matter who
the perpetrators are. I am not recommending a particular model - I am
condemning exploitation. If you want to casually dismiss these
"exploitive powers of American style capitalism," on the basis that you
can find other examples of even more unjust exploitation of people by
other ruthless ruling powers in the annals of world history, then we
cannot have a worthwhile discussion. I am not defending any
exploitation. I want to see the end of all exploitive powers in the
world, in order that many diverse cultures can coexist side by side in
peaceful harmony. A hippie's pipedream? Perhaps, but a worthwhile goal
nonetheless.
ROG:
"one dismisses the entire field of economics because it contradicts
one's views with an explanation that we are brainwashed into some kind
of "vice like grip,""
My reasoned response:
Not the entire field of economics, but certainly the entire standard
orthodox neoclassical theory, upon which the vast majority of American
economic policy is made. I know it is difficult to accept that you have
been brainwashed into some kind of "vice like grip", but you have
repeatedly demonstrated this in your contributions to the MOQ
discussion, thus the source of many of your mental blocks. I know that
you have some inkling of this in the back of your mind, for you have
repeatedly brought up the virtues of complexity theory to the discussion
also. If your knowledge of economics is as great as you believe it is,
then you certainly know that the neoclassical model does not, cannot,
nor will it ever be able to, fit within the framework of an evolving
(learning) complex adaptive system. And we both know that the economy is
a complex adaptive system. If you want to discuss economics, we can
discuss economics, but it will take another thread and a lot more space
and time than I am willing to go into here.
ROG:
"where one makes unsupported statements that America has made a "lack of
contribution to the intellectual level during this time,""
My reasoned response:
Do we really have to go into this again, here? There have been many
others here, beside myself, who have tried to enlighten you on this, but
you refuse to listen. First of all, lets agree that the American economy
has grown substantially during the cold war and that we have made many
advancements in technology. I am not arguing against this. I don't know
where these advancements would fit in Pirsig's levels, for I am not
enlightened yet in the ways of the MOQ. However, I strongly suspect that
they were achievements made within the social level. It is my belief
that the American intellectual level was stymied during the cold war,
due to the enormous intellectual effort that went towards the creation
and maintenance of the military machine. We were, no doubt, successful
on that front, and many technologies that were developed in this effort
were later made available to the public (the internet) and to commercial
interests. However, these efforts were motivated by the national
interest towards killing the greatest amount of people, with the least
amount of loss of life to Americans, from the greatest distance away
possible. This is hardly the landscape for developing the intellect, and
I think that is reflected in American culture today. On a higher note,
since the end of the cold war, we have seen some greater contributions
by Americans to the intellectual level. I think we will see more to
come. The Russians were a real threat (at least, the American mind
believed they were real) and it required a national effort to oppose
this threat. I don't think any terrorist organization will replace this
great figure of mythic proportions in the American psyche despite media
efforts. There will be an ongoing intellectual discussion about the
proper role of the American military and economy in the world. It may
not be covered by CNN or FOX news, but it is happening.
ROG:
"where one flippantly dismisses the validity of any arguments on oil
substitution with an unsubstantiated appeal to superior "knowledge of
the natural sciences.""
My reasoned response:
No, Roger. This is not an unsubstantiated appeal. I pointed out the
unique quality of oil and its crucial importance to supporting the world
economy. I don't have any restricted access to knowledge of the natural
science (I am a social scientist, after all), but there are no
substitutes for oil, when it comes to its exclusive role in the global
economy. This knowledge only requires a small amount of research. And,
yes, that research will require SOME familiarity of the natural sciences.
ROG:
"I am not saying that I am the model of proper debate, but I think we
can make a lot more progress where we present facts and avoid
ill-defined rhetorical dismissals...May I suggest instead that when you
give a position to which someone else provides specific evidence to the
contrary that you address the issue head on."
My reasoned response:
I mean it, Roger - you really are a silly man. I readily admit my resort
to "ill-defined rhetorical dismissals," but I defend their
appropriateness. Lets see...I will begin by the source of my frustration
with achieving any results from a dialogue with you. On SUN, August 3rd
you responded to my inquiry into a statement you had made previously
ROG previously,
"I get a lot of satisfaction at the US's reticence to enter a misguided
international court and a wasteful Kyoto agreement."
ROG defends statement:
"Sorry, but I see value in the debate -- the competition of ideas. Just
as importantly, I do not trust the international court and I think Kyoto
is a mistake. You are right; there are a lot of forces that want to
destroy liberal democratic, free enterprise values and the world that it
creates. A few countries have weathered the storm and guided the world
out of the mistakes of the 20th century. I hope we can contribute as
much in the 21st.
The current threats (to grossly oversimplify) include:
1) Religious fanatics
2) Idealistic socialists desiring totalitarian control so they can
implement
a better world
3) Intellectuals out to eliminate the rule of law
4) Environmentalists out to protect the environment or resources by
dismantling the economy
My continued reasoned response,
I am sorry, but I am missing the facts here. Are they buried somewhere
within this example of reasoned argument that does not resort to
ill-defined rhetorical dismissal. Oh there it is; you don't TRUST the
international court; and you THINK Kyoto is a MISTAKE. Of course, now I
understand what you mean by the "competition of ideas." America is the
strongest, so we will do what we THINK is best and only adhere to the
friends we TRUST. I presume you would mean Israel as someone we could
trust. Now can we go on to the "grossly over-simplified" current threats.
1) Religious fanatics-Do you mean internal or external? I don't think
there is much doubt that the two countries with the highest percent of
popular religious fanaticism are, presumably in order: Saudi Arabia,
USA. We are lucky to have some institutional barriers that have
prevented the intrusion of these fanatics from penetrating the state in
the US, unlike the Saudi's. However, there are indications that these
institutional barriers are being eroded by the penetration of the
fanatics into the conservative wings of the Republican Party, for
example Tom Ashcroft.
2) Idealistic socialists desiring totalitarian control so they can
implement a better world - I have not met any idealistic socialist who
wish to make the world a better place and are also desiring totalitarian
control. I don't think there are any serious idealistic socialists who
consider Stalin as one of their ilk. That cold war mentality has
penetrated the inner reaches of your mind. It is difficult, if not
impossible, to cast out - I am afraid.
3) Intellectuals out to eliminate the rule of law - Are you serious? And
this requires the maintenance of our military superiority around the
world. So we can go from university to university around the world in a
military engagement to cast out the infidels from academia, I presume?
4) Environmentalists out to protect the environment or resources by
dismantling the economy - Again, I think you need to do some research
here. You cannot grow the economy without harming the environment, and
thus our long-term outlook for survival on the planet. Roger, let me
make an unsubstantiated remark here. You did not come to the realization
that there was any global warming until relatively recently. For many
years, you dismissed this as the ranting of some crazed
environmentalists out to destroy the economy. Come on, profess; you were
not alone - many others joined you in this, at most times, vicious
dismissal of environmentalist's warnings. So, why is this no longer so
easily dismissed? Well, lets look at some facts. For many years the
Global Climate Commission (GCC) helped fund a disinformation campaign on
global warming. They have invested millions of dollars in this campaign.
In 1999, BP withdrew from the commission announcing, "the time to
consider the policy dimensions of climate change is not when the link
between greenhouse gases and climate change is conclusively proven, but
when the possibility cannot be discounted..." Following BP's withdrawal,
Royal Dutch Shell, (Dupont had already left earlier)and Ford motor
company also left in 1999. In 2000, Daimler Chrysler, Texaco, and
General Motors withdrew from the commission. Now, out of nowhere, the
attackers of "global warming alarmists" of the past, of which I suspect
you were one, are stepping up to say that it is a reality as if they
have known this all along. When will you acknowledge the other
environmental calamities that await our immediate attention before being
imposed on us in the near future. Like global warming, I assume it will
happen when it is already too late. So, tell me - Why is Kyoto a
"wasteful agreement"?
I hope I have met your standards of presenting some reasoned arguments.
There are plenty of holes in the exterior for you to come on in, so
enter at you own risk. I cannot promise that there will be no more dogma
and rhetoric in the future. Sometimes it is the only appropriate
response. Sometimes, it is ill-advised. I don't pretend to be able to
distinguish one from the other.
Andy
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:18 BST