patrick.net

"Leftism is based on Human Nature being almost infinitely malleable"

Under the influence of unlimited public spending. Always more, never enough.

This story (from The Blank Slate p.331) has always stuck with me as to the delicate nature of our peace...
As a young teenager in proudly peaceable Canada during the romantic 1960s, I was a true believer in Bakunin’s anarchism. I laughed off my parents’ argument that if the government ever laid down its arms all hell would break loose. Our competing predictions were put to the test at 8:00 A.M. on October 17, 1969, when the Montreal police went on strike. By 11:20 A.M. the first bank was robbed. By noon most downtown stores had closed because of looting. Within a few more hours, taxi drivers burned down the garage of a limousine service that had competed with them for airport customers, a rooftop sniper killed a provincial police officer, rioters broke into several hotels and restaurants, and a doctor slew a burglar in his suburban home. By the end of the day, six banks had been robbed, a hundred shops had been looted, twelve fires had been set, forty carloads of storefront glass had been broken, and three million dollars in property damage had been inflicted, before city authorities had to call in the army and, of course, the Mounties to restore order. This decisive empirical test left my politics in tatters (and offered a foretaste of life as a scientist).

Here's an interesting critique of parts of his Enlightenment work.
Problems with Steven Pinker's Enlightenment Narrative
www.youtube.com/embed/eqgfgBH0ICw

CornPoptheOriginalGangster says

1. That humans are NOT a blank slate, possess a multitude of universal behaviors, that is innate and not socially constructed.
2. That 200 years of the Enlightenment Liberal Nationalism has created the best situation for individual humans in all history, and we should step back and appreciate.

The first point is great.
The second is very difficult for me to accept. You could have said at the top Roman hegemony in the Mediterranean "Pax Romana created the best situation for individual humans in all history.".... Just before 1000 years of dark age, plagues, barbarian invasions, obscurantism, and other human misery. There are trends that are unsustainable and you can't pretend they are.

In any case, the first point goes against SJWs narratives (in academia), the second against environmentalists narratives and economic left socialism.
If you're not with them, you're against them...

If you say anything of substance in this world, someone will hate you for it. So?

Heraclitusstudent says

Roman hegemony in the Mediterranean "Pax Romana created the best situation for individual humans in all history.".... Just before 1000 years of dark age, plagues, barbarian invasions, obscurantism, and other human misery.

True, but that's a reason to insure that Liberal Nationalism doesn't collapse from too many "Reforms" and "Diversity" and corrupt Cosmopolitan Elites who view themselves as "Citizens of the World" rather than of their respective Nations.

Too many take the benefits of the Enlightenment and Liberal Nationalism too lightly, and think society is infinitely malleable.

I believe you're either growing or dying, so the solution is to greatly expand the number of Enlightenment Value powered Liberal Nation states, first with unincoporated US territories on the Moon, Mars, and beyond. (You knew i was gonna sneak that in).

CornPoptheOriginalGangster says

Heraclitusstudent says

Roman hegemony in the Mediterranean "Pax Romana created the best situation for individual humans in all history.".... Just before 1000 years of dark age, plagues, barbarian invasions, obscurantism, and other human misery.

True, but that's a reason to insure that Liberal Nationalism doesn't collapse from too many "Reforms" and "Diversity" and corrupt Cosmopolitan Elites who view themselves as "Citizens of the World" rather than of their respective Nations.

Too many take the benefits of the Enlightenment and Liberal Nationalism too lightly, and think society is infinitely malleable.

I believe you're either growing or dying, so the solution is to greatly expand the number of Enlightenment Value powered Liberal Nation states, first with unincoporated US territories on the Moon, Mars, and beyond. (You knew i was gonna sneak that in).

The misery, invasions, and wars only ensued because the imperium became weak, good times create weak men. It's a cycle. Rome had a lot of faults, but it was the best system back then. Until it got weak.

Heraclitusstudent says

Pax Romana created the best situation for individual humans in all history.

I disagree.

Pax Americana has created the best living conditions in known history. Even our impoverished are obese. The Roman's wished they had dental care like we do. At least our poor have iPhones and are not starving.

Onvacation says

The Roman's wished they had dental

Of course I meant: "Pax Romana created the best situation for individual humans in all history until then."

CornPoptheOriginalGangster says

I believe you're either growing or dying, so the solution is to greatly expand the number of Enlightenment Value powered Liberal Nation states, first with unincoporated US territories on the Moon, Mars, and beyond.

It's not that simple. You can't ensure the continuity of memes through history. The long arc of moral progress leads you self-righteousness and eventually to SJWism, and neo Marxism.

At a late point, you'll find yourself trying to defend Enlightenment Values to strangers on the Internet. And then BOOM... You're done.

There is only so much organic growth to be had out there.

Heraclitusstudent says

The second is very difficult for me to accept. You could have said at the top Roman hegemony in the Mediterranean "Pax Romana created the best situation for individual humans in all history.".... Just before 1000 years of dark age, plagues, barbarian invasions, obscurantism, and other human misery. There are trends that are unsustainable and you can't pretend they are.

I can accept that a period in time is "the best" even if subsequently there is a fall from that level. The people who died from old age before the Roman Empire collapse certainly lived the best human lifestyle during their time alive compared to any lifestyle previously lived.

It is amazing to review how even "the rich" lived just 200 years ago. No central heating or A/C, no indoor plumbing, no electricity use, etc. When railroads first connected cities in Great Britain just 150 years ago, people could actually travel at sustained speed of 30 MPH, whereas 30 MPH is a laughable goal today.

SunnyvaleCA says

I can accept that a period in time is "the best" even if subsequently there is a fall from that level. The people who died from old age before the Roman Empire collapse certainly lived the best human lifestyle during their time alive compared to any lifestyle previously lived.

That's true, provided the self confidence, bravado and arrogance instilled by self congratulatory books such as "Enlightenment now" is not what causes the ensuing fall.

Heraclitusstudent says

Onvacation says

The Roman's wished they had dental

Of course I meant: "Pax Romana created the best situation for individual humans in all history until then."

Unless you had a toothache

Heraclitusstudent says

There is only so much organic growth to be had out there.

Got a whole moon, quarter the size of the Earth. Just a few days away, a shorter trip than Columbus or Cabot had from Europe to the New World. That should last a couple of centuries. Then of course, the entire solar system, good for at least a few millennium.

Heraclitusstudent says

That's true, provided the self confidence, bravado and arrogance instilled by self congratulatory books such as "Enlightenment now" is not what causes the ensuing fall.

Taking it for granted and not appreciating it is the real danger. Going back to Mel's point: Good Times create Weak Men...

Got a whole moon, quarter the size of the Earth. Just a few days away, a shorter trip than Columbus or Cabot had from Europe to the New World.

It would be easier to colonize the bottom of the sea, Greenland, and Antarctica. It would be easier to live on the top of a mesa or in an abandoned coal mine than to live in an low gravity, no atmosphere, temperature extreme place like the moon.

HeadSet says

It would be easier to colonize the bottom of the sea, Greenland, and Antarctica. It would be easier to live on the top of a mesa or in an abandoned coal mine than to live in an low gravity, no atmosphere, temperature extreme place like the moon.

Low Gravity, No Atmosphere, full of Aluminium, Titanium, and Iron = Megastructures, Centrifuges, etc. cheaply and easily. Pain in the ass to build a 1000 foot tower out of non-steel iron or aluminium in Greenland by 3 guys and load it up with solar panels. A snap on the moon, no earthquakes, no wind, little friction, low gravity.

We won't be living much on celestial bodies... since we'll need long duration habitats to get there, might as well stay on those. We'll live on O'Neil Cylinders with only mining outposts on the moon. Still have to get there because the lag time from Earth to Mars is unacceptable.

BUT, the Lunar building with remote vehicles is a snap. Slight lag that doesn't stop kids from playing WOW.

Also, it's a helluva lot easier to repair satellites from the Moon than Earth... and it'll make higher altitude sat networks more feasible. Including microwave beamed power.

CornPoptheOriginalGangster says

Taking it for granted and not appreciating it is the real danger.

You can take it as an answer to the Noam Chomski types who think we are the worse and everything we claim to want is but a pretext or a veil for the rabid greed that animates us. In that sense I agree.

But we can't let hide the fact that we are already in overshoot situation with regard to nature on earth and things will get much worse in the coming century.

Heraclitusstudent says

But we can't let hide the fact that we are already in overshoot situation with regard to nature on earth and things will get much worse in the coming century.

Noam Chomsky types aren't so interested in Earth and Growth Rates as they are with knocking down the West.

Greta Thurberg wouldn't get much time on Chinese State Media if she came for a visit. The CCP would make a nice blurb for foreign consumption of her meeting with some Party Bigwigs to shake hands, but the ordinary Chinese person would probably not even know about it.

Same thing with the Anti-Nuclear Movement in the USA. Russians didn't even know about it. The Kremlin didn't want Russian Public getting ideas about disarmament!

They're quite muted about Chinese, Russia, Iranian oppression or African birthrates and deforestation or Rare Earth Mining Mordor Making. They think allowing mass influx of third worlders who will have 4 kids and quintuple their carbon emissions into the West is somehow compatible with controlling population and Global Warming.

CornPoptheOriginalGangster says

HeadSet says

It would be easier to colonize the bottom of the sea, Greenland, and Antarctica. It would be easier to live on the top of a mesa or in an abandoned coal mine than to live in an low gravity, no atmosphere, temperature extreme place like the moon.

Low Gravity, No Atmosphere, full of Aluminium and Iron = Megastructures, Centrifuges, etc. cheaply and easily. Pain in the ass to build a 1000 foot tower out of non-steel iron or aluminium in Greenland by 3 guys and load it up with solar panels. A snap on the moon, no earthquakes, wind, little friction, low gravity.

That low gravity alone would kill you. As would the meteorites the size of grain of sands that constantly pepper the surface. Or the cosmic radiations. Or solar flares. Everything you eat would have to be brought at great energy costs from your gravity pit neighbor. And every tool you would need. Good luck producing iron mega structures using solar panels. In an environment where you could fry an egg on a rock in the full sun, though it would freeze on the other side.

Believe me you would be much better off at the bottom of the sea, in Greenland, or Antarctica.

We're in 2019, 50 years after the first human set foot there, and so far about 2 dozens humans have followed him. There are reasons for this.

Heraclitusstudent says

That low gravity alone would kill you. As would the meteorites the size of grain of sands that constantly pepper the surfac

People have survived microgravity for more than a year. 4 Astronauts have been in microgravity over a year and are doing fine and dandy back on Earth.
The micrometeorites are grossly exaggerated, the risk of them is slightly higher than getting hit by a lightening strike, and unlike the movies, all the air wouldn't rush out at first impact of a microhole or expand like a cartoon dam crack.
Nuclear Power is safe and wonderful. Without an atmosphere and at the poles, only a few hours of no sunlight per lunar month, solar power is a snap to generate.
Once you're there, you need a fraction of the fuel to get to LEO/MEO/GEO than from the Earth. That means you can fix and upgrade satellites instead of expensive disposable systems like today.
Very tough to evacuate somebody from Antarctica in July. On the moon, you get in the lander and power up the monopropellant engine, home in about 2-3 days.

If we live in microgravity on the ISS, we can definitely live on the Moon.

Heraclitusstudent says

We're in 2019, 50 years after the first human set foot there, and so far about 2 dozens humans have followed him. There are reasons for this.

The time gap between colonization of the North America and the first exploration missions was also 100 years.

The death rate was much, much, much higher for Cabot and Drake and Verazano than for Apollo, despite the former having better ISRU capabilities and several millennium behind their vehicle designs, which were relatively expensive and required skilled personnel.

Our biggest problem with space exploration is our postmodern risk aversion mentality, part of the the weakening and hyperfeminization of our society.

We got from biplanes to transcontinental 4-engine aircraft due to 1000s of crashes and deaths in 25 years.

Presented without comments:
‘I Basically Just Made It Up’: Confessions of a Social Constructionist
https://quillette.com/2019/09/17/i-basically-just-made-it-up-confessions-of-a-social-constructionist

"I never engaged—at least not seriously—with anyone who suggested otherwise. And no one, at any point of my graduate studies, or in peer review, ever did suggest otherwise—except in conversations, usually outside of academia. And so I was never forced to confront alternative, biologically oriented explanations that were at least as plausible as the hypothesis that I’d dressed up with the air of certainty. Steven Pinker’s critique of social constructionism, The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature, was published in 2002 before I finished my PhD and before I published my book. Yet I hadn’t even heard of it, and no one ever suggested I might need to deal with its arguments and evidence. That alone should tell you a lot about the silo we all inhabited."

CornPoptheOriginalGangster says

Got a whole moon, quarter the size of the Earth. Just a few days away, a shorter trip than Columbus or Cabot had from Europe to the New World.

In addition it always shows the same face to us while the rest of our moon points out into the universe. Its low gravity and lack of atmosphere makes it the ideal launch pad.

:
I don't hate Pinker at all. I think he's very intelligent, interesting and I would tend to agree that we aren't a blank slate. Also I like his optimistic view about mankind, while simultaneously worrying about overpopulation and flaws with unbridled capitalism, and countless other problems of this era, including AGW.

Unlike so many people on the right and the left, I don't feel the need to blindly follow everything my party says, or for that matter everything the other party wished that I believed with their infantile straw men.

If you're to tethered to the right or the left you're just a moron (no offense intended).

Keep working though, selling that image of the left as what you want it to be. And good luck with that.

:

Pinker is an intelligent realist, and I find it encouraging that you might be willing to listen to him.

Harvard professor Steven Pinker explains the disturbing truth behind Trump's 2 favorite phrases

https://www.businessinsider.com/meaning-of-fake-news-and-make-america-great-again-steven-pinker-2018-3?jwsource=cl