"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule. "
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. "
I will leave it to the dumb to ponder the current issue this might apply to, and for the rest of you, I will leave you with this.
I recall, when sodium vapor lights were introduced back in the 70’s, there were all kinds of environmentalists that seriously argued that these lights would kill all the trees in the city because it would screw up their day/night rhythms or whatever. They were all very sure of this and were issuing dire warnings about cities full of dead trees.
So what happened to all that? I notice that despite an almost universal switch to sodium vapor lights in urban areas, we still have trees there.
“With great power comes great responsibility”-Ben Parker.
I’ve seen the above quotes used before to belittle the efforts of those who at least make an effort to better the lives of their fellow man. Have you got cites that show that there was a widespread effort by leading environmentalists to ban sodium vapor lights?
If you want to believe that, I’m fine to let you, but good luck with it. I’ll leave it to you to provide more than two examples though, let alone prove a majority.
You know, I’ve noticed in quite a few threads lately, that Happy has been wont to impugn the good motives of people who have any objections to any part of the status quo.
The potential harm to (select varieties of) trees from sodium vapor lights is real and known (.pdf), but there were no serious claims that all the trees were going to die. Instead, the sodium lamps tend to be used in parking lots, treeless city streets, and limited access highway interchanges where there are few trees to be affected. When placed on tree-lined residential streets, planners have tended to use fixtures that reduce the amount of direct shine on the trees, reducing the harm. We may, indeed, discover that we have harmed many city trees, but the harm is mixed in with the general harm from pollution, the covering of roots with asphalt and concrete, and other abuses we inflict, and the (current) solution is to plant new trees where the effects of urban insult have damaged or killed them.
As was pointed out to you in this thread,Happy, those quotes are applicable to the nonthreat of Iraq that was pumped up to justify the invasion, but they are not applicable to anthropogenic climate change, which is a real threat.
[QUOTE=Happy Wanderer
So what happened to all that? I notice that despite an almost universal switch to sodium vapor lights in urban areas, we still have trees there.[/QUOTE]
But virtually no stars in the sky anymore, due to the night sky being washed out by the sodium vapor lights.
Oddly enough, it certainly looks as if you are claiming to be saving humanity in this thread. Later in turns out that you are making a false front for the urge to rule. So Mr. Mencken was correct, at least about you.
Oddly enough, in this thread you’re engaging in practical politics. Later, as **Tom **showed, you menace us with an imaginary hobgoblin. So Mr. Mencken was again correct, at least as his quote applies to you.
I will now proffer my own maxim, which does not come from any snarky postmodernist journalist.
"The urge to quote H. L. Mencken is almost always a false front intended to cover the quoter’s arrogance and stupidity.
I will leave it to the dumb to ponder which poster in this thread this might apply to–though that probably won’t matter, since the dumb appears to have abandoned this thread–and for the rest of you, I will (really!) leave you with this.
