What’s silly about it? More economy uses more energy. Therefore if we make ourselves use more energy, we get more economy. Any fool can see that.
(Somewhere, somewhen, there’s a fool on the board of an oil company looking for a “like” button here…)
Which- increases the housing supply, thus leading to lower rents. Economics!
Look, space is limited in SF. If you dont allow those huge expensive condos/apartment buildings., the yuppies will just move into those older houses, and push the workers out that way.
Yes- Economics!
The service people are SOL no matter what.
Not “no matter what”. San Francisco could build massive dormitory-style subsidized housing open to anyone who could prove they had a 35+ hour a week job located inside San Francisco city limits, paid for by raising the property tax. It’s a very simple solution that would easily solve the problem of the millionaires who live in San Francisco being unable to find the service workers to support their lavish lifestyles. Boom, problem solved. Heck, stuff the homeless junkies in there too, they’ll still be junkies but at least you won’t have to look at them sleeping on the streets.
But this would never happen, not because it’s economically impossible, but because it would be politically impossible.
You can’t raise property taxes in California.
No, you can raise every other tax and fee instead, and they have.
Jarvis and McGann can rot in hell.
So Move.
#ProblemSolved
#IdiotDitched
#YoureWelcomeSF
I was just thinking my overly broad title was wisely chosen as it allowed me to lay into all sorts of tangential areas where liberals piss me off and deserve my contempt.
The rate of change of current climate is faster than normal, but not the fastest. That was the point. And the earth has recovered. I specifically mentioned large asteroid strikes and other sudden shifts over the eons that were FAR more radical and devastating than modern man. But none of that raises the ire of the environmentalists, because mankind was not the cause. This is not to say that our changes are a good and positive thing, it was just to point out that the HUMAN influence is the holy sin against god.
I am not overly worried about negative feedbacks like you and Hanson and McKibben. And it boils down to something that is more attitudinal than scientific. I’m not a death cultust/nihilist/catastrophist. If radical environmental changes do come due to climate change before we can switch to cleaner alternatives, I fully believe we can and will cope with the changes. Extinctions will continue to be higher than normal, but eventually that will level off. To you? And them? They consider these changes as the worst of all POSSIBLE realities, so dire that almost ANYTHING ought to be green lit and enacted to radically switch over our energy use, even if it retards growth and radically slows the rate at which we bring more poeple out of poverty.
Nature over humanity. The choice is made, this is why I HATE people like them, and to the extent that you sign off on this trash ideology, you as well.
Bullshit. The donosaurs are extinct because of a large asteroid, that was far more radical than anything we are doing, and life moved on. And so will we. We’ll have a much easier time adjusting to human influenced climate change than a large asteroid strike, because that really was more sudden and devastating.
If you have a problem with mass extinctions, stop bitching at me and human beings. 99% of every living species that has ever existed on this earth has gone extinct, and it was not the hand of man that caused that, that was nature. Do you care? Is it so much worse that an infinitesimal fraction of extinctions can be linked to us? Why? Why is so much hatred and rage directed at human beings? We are just a part of life on earth, no different from an invasive species of snake that made its way to a new ecosystem after some sea currents changed. Why are WE the great devils over the eons? Human hating scum ideology.
The world is what we make of it. No one wants plastics littering the oceans, I certainly don’t. Solution? I don’t know. I am still surprised we allow trash to flow from storm drains into oceans. Perhaps we can engineer a plastic that degrades in the ocean?
And though it may not seem like it, I am not completely indifferent to preserving a healthy world for non human animals, but that often leads to choosing between more costly energy paths for humans and I am not seemingly only concerned about the natural world like some of these zealots as I see them are.
For the record, when I saw we need to use far more energy, it’s not so we can use more of it personally, we already use quite a bit, our focus should be on improving efficiency. But more energy total? Yes, because most of humanity is living in the gutter of existence, very low energy because they are dirt poor with no options. The kind of situation a so called “liberals” ought to want to improve. I want them to have better access to that environment destroying thing called… electricity !!!
Oh no, how AWFUL am I! Now I’d still prefer they get the energy from sources other than coal, but I still want them using more energy than what they currently are using. I want more people to be able to travel the globe, to live the kind of rarefied life people in the west take for granted. And that kind of requires we ramp up the energy use.
And here is the key. Anti human nature worshipping bigots and population catastrophists left wing idiots often think that merely increasing energy use, increasing human population, increasing city footprints, necessarily leads to worse outcomes for nature and the world. But these fools are engaging in a basic cheat of logic. They are presuming that the way we build and generate energy now, will stay constant, with all its negative consequences, and ramp up linearly or worse. But it’s even more likely that we can both increase energy usage, increase population, while having LESS impact on the environment. That is the goal, and these nihilists don’t think its possible or feasible.
All the people bithcing about emissions from coal who fought against fission nuclear plants, especially the relatively safe third generation nuclear plants, are the enemies of human civlization and flourishing.
A small band of hunter gathers who burn amazon forest for fire and warmth do more damage than a hundred people heating their homes from natural gas. This is such an obvious point I feel embarrassed for having to make it, but the radical enviros are blind to basic reason here.
I’m all for stuffing homeless people somewhere, but not with people who are in the service sector. Homeless people are such blighted examples of humanity often other homeless people don’t want to be around them.
I saw we round them up, find the crazy ones and institutionalize them, the rest who are infirm give some basic housing somewhere else and cheaper in the state.
LEFTY LIBERAL: But they need to be FREE !!!
ME: Free to sleep on the sidewalk in public accost people for money? No, leave with that crap, some people (Read me) would rather not be bothered. We would rather pay extra taxes to house and offer a basic living stipend to exist than allow that to muck op non blighted society.
It was that lefty liberal Ronald Reagan who put all of the people with mental problems out on the street.
No, he was a conservative doing his best libertarian impression trying to let the “market” handle taking care of crazy people who literally could not take care of themselves.
Obviously that is a no go, and obviously private charity has failed to solve that issue. Not that that observed reality would sway a libertarian, water off a ducks back to them. They would come up with excuses for why it has not happened as they expect, or lie. Shift blame for the failure of charity on something like people paying taxes at too high a rate to afford covering the gaps. I think I still hate libertarians and conservatives the most, but that’s for a different thread.
Sorry, hang on. You’re genuinely confused as to why people assign a moral value to the actions of human beings, but don’t assign moral value to the actions of giant hunks of rock floating in space?
Exactly how stupid are you?
I get it. Human beings are the only entities on the earth that are self aware enough to know better. It’s the same sort of twisted logic a crazed vegan peta type would use to lambaste humans that eat meat while ignoring the bear in the forest that butchers not only smaller animals, but other bears if they get in their way.
But these people want it both ways. They rail against people who say that the well being of other human beings should have a higher value than the well being of plants/animals/ecosystems. They clearly think humans beings do not deserve any special consideration, or nowhere near as much as I do. But then they turn around and make SPECIAL demands on human beings, special burdens and responsibilities. Because why? Oh right, because we are special and know better. All the responsibility, none of the perks. This is their model. This is the sort of thought process that allows one of their kind to dream of a day long past of an earth untouched by mankind, before it was despoiled and defiled.
Go ask these people if they think the planet would be better without human beings. Go ask!
I wonder, I have never thought to ask, what these people hating scum would say when nature swells the radius and light/heat output of the sun over hundreds of millions of years? They say we have around a billion years before the oceans boil away, what will happen to the biodiversity of the earth then? It will turn to ash. But maybe not. What is the ONE creature in all the earth (so far) with the capacity to do something about that and preserve life? Oh that’s right. Human beings. Yes, they killed some species wantonly on their way up while they were getting their bearings, they accelerated climate shifts on the earth in a 300-400 year time frame before shifting to solar/fusion in the BILLIONS of YEARS of the life age of the earth (jesus effing christ these liberals have ZERO sense of cosmic time, this is LITERALLY nothing, same goes for some 10000 year half life of fission material, and likely less if we feed it back into newer more advanced reactors), but they are still the greatest gift that the natural world has puked up out of the muck on this planet, so it would be nice if they got a little more god damn respect.
Your complaint makes no sense. Human beings already have innumerable “perks” that come with being the dominant and most intelligent species on the planet, and being able to shape the world the way we want it. I don’t know of a single environmentalist who argues that human beings shouldn’t build houses, have food production networks, transportation networks, etc., even though all those things are disruptive to the natural environment of countless other creatures.
Human beings are already incredibly privileged compared to other species, thanks to the intelligence, dexterity and social cooperation that give us so much control over our environment. Your butthurt whining about the “unfairness” of humans being expected to use that control with a little more thoughtfulness completely ignores that existing privilege.
You’re right, we do already have perks. And to be fair the enviro malthusians are OK with us having those perks, so long we don’t grow too large or have too much of an impact. And if we start getting too numerous and using too many resources, then a lot of them think we need to shrink down.
finite pie, resources fixed, zero sum game - assumptions of a poisoned left leaning population/enviro nut mind. This is being painted as ultra black and white by me because I am picking out the worst and most over the top negative impulses and underpinnings of the people I am talking about, but the solutions of someone like Bill McKibben are radically different from what someone like the guys at the breakthrough institute would engage in. (These are the most reasonable environmentalists imo)The focus is less on following the **abstinence **model of energy use, oh dear, our energy use pollute, I guess we should just stop f*cking!/using energy!
… or, we could use research and technology to make the cleaner stuff cheaper so the switch will be less costly and oppressive for the less well to do.
[quote=“Salvor, post:96, topic:756772”]
You’re right, we do already have perks. And to be fair the enviro malthusians are OK with us having those perks, so long we don’t grow too large or have too much of an impact. And if we start getting too numerous and using too many resources, then a lot of them think we need to shrink down.
finite pie, resources fixed, zero sum game - assumptions of a poisoned left leaning population/enviro nut mind. This is being painted as ultra black and white by me because I am picking out the worst and most over the top negative impulses and underpinnings of the people I am talking about, but the solutions of someone like Bill McKibben are radically different from what someone like the guys at the breakthrough institute would engage in. (These are the most reasonable environmentalists imo)The focus is less on following the **abstinence **model of energy use, oh dear, our energy use pollute, I guess we should just stop f*cking!/using energy!
… or, we could use research and technology to make the cleaner stuff cheaper so the switch will be less costly and oppressive for the less well to do.
[/QUOTE]You’re a fucking idiot who doesn’t appear to know much and relies too heavily on the Urban Dictionary in argument. I believe you are trying to make some point passionately adopted from some book you’ve read or website you’ve visited, but lack the skills to implement it functionally.
Here’s my argument and proof:
youtube.link
youtube.link
youtube.link
youtube.link
youtube.link
Yes, the attention spans spans or time constraints of some people are too short to watch hour plus long talks, so I’ll list a more condensed version where more reasonable arguments are made.
Now, for some even 20 minutes is too much to slog through, so I will summarize since apparently, some people are too feeble minded to listen to an argument that was crafted and designed to communicate ideas clearly to the public. If 20 minutes is too much to hear, perhaps some bullet points would be more useful, can’t take up too much of the attention of some of you.
Thoughts on the prevailing ideas of trash environmentalists (which liberals love to prop up without critical thought):
-focusing on catastrophe is counterproductive
-focusing on the politics of austerity and finite pies for energy resources is a dead end
-technological solutions to switch people off dirtier energy is the way forward, conservation is not enough, not if you intend to lift more people out of the gutter.
-If you don’t intend to lift people out of the gutter and have them use more energy, then stop calling yourself a liberal, call yourself a regressive anti human nature worshipping environmentalist
That last was more about my contempt for this type of person who ignores the well being of people in their talks of being good environmentalists (the overpopulation crowd, the focus on energy conservation while at the same time seeking to constrain nuclear crowd) are actively working against the interests of all mankind in my view.
But again, if you want a more measured argument, with more examples of how we got off dirtier energy use, watch that brief talk. Or don’t. Stick your head in the sand and refuse to listen to the argument.
Excuse me, no, the point the other poster was making that you missed was that you’re a fucking idiot who doesn’t appear to know much. This is true. Some of us who don’t like to waste time trying to gain wisdom on scientific topics from YouTube videos actually have no problem spending a great deal of time reading research papers instead. I offer the following cite as a good example of the other poster’s statement, which I fully agree with:
That entire thing is a confused mess of scientific fallacy and rampant confusion sprinkled with generous doses of words randomly shouted in all caps; it muddles together “the planet” with the well-being of life on the planet; it makes ridiculous and totally unsubstantiated predictions about what we will and will not be able to manage and equally uninformed pronouncements about the prognosis for extinctions; it shows that you don’t understand what a feedback is in scientific terms; it misrepresents the position of thoughtful environmentalists like Jim Hansen, and you still can’t even spell his name right.
But you “hate me” because I posted a scientifically accurate summary that you deem to be “trash ideology”.
You’re not merely an idiot, you seem to be fairly deranged, too.
I hate people who focus most of their attention on climate change without proper attention to the needs of human beings first and foremost. Guilty. There is a lot of speculation in my posts, most of it revolves around my theories as to why people are this way. You can pretend the exaggerated examples I gave don’t exist in reality, but when I hear someone talk about the need to reduce the human population to save the environment and climate, that makes me think they value the state of the natural world over the state of man. It makes me think they have a world view of finite pies and finite resources that cannot be easily solved by human ingenuity.
When I hear people say we need to reduce energy use globally I cannot square that desire/demand with the needs of hundreds of millions of human beings to rise out of lives of squalor and destitution by using MORE energy. Maybe they really do want more people to have access to cheap energy, but you would not know it from their focus and rhetoric. They pile onto all the negatives about fossil fuels while ignoring the benefits to civilization that it brings. Should the chinese government not have built all those new coal fired power plants and ramped up production in the country over the decades? Would they have been better off not lifting hundreds of millions of their citizens out of abject poverty?
I expect liberals to want to help lift the rest of the world out of poverty, how is that going to happen without more energy use? The negatives that come with that energy use exist, but the primary focus of environmentalists should be on making the alternatives cheaper than more polluting energy sources.
Instead what do we find? Heavy focus on making fossil fuels more expensive (fuck the poor). Hostility to nuclear power that is zero emissions with very condensed waste (still don’t know the credible rationale against nuclear). A ridiculous presumption that just because people might agree that human caused climate change is a real thing and a problem, that it supercedes almost all other human concerns. This last is a value judgement.
I don’t expect people to go against their own immediate interests, especially in the third world, when it comes to choosing between what is better for the environment and what is better for them.
I am not a fool for expecting that, Everyone else is a fool not to.