This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Not OP, but I believe the same thing, more or less, so I'll give it a shot.
"Renewable" energy is likely not a good long-term solution to our energy needs. It is very poor at providing stable base load power. At one point yesterday, something like 45% of Germany's power was generated by coal. Contributions from wind and solar were essentially zero. The very expensive renewable infrastructure built throughout Europe is only utilized to a small percentage of its capacity. Meanwhile, nuclear plants are being retired. We are treated to absurdities such as France being fined for not reaching its renewable goals despite having by far the lowest carbon intensity of any major European country. Or forests being felled in the United States to import "renewable" wood pellets for power generation in Europe.
A renewable power transition will require vast amounts of copper, lithium, and other base metals. It is very unclear where these metals will come from. As batteries, wind turbines, and solar panels age they will require disposal and replacement, meaning that this is not a one time cost either.
Various sources of power have different returns on investment. For something like natural gas, you might get 100x the energy from burning it than you need to acquire it. For solar, this number is much lower. Exact estimates differ, but the true number is probably much lower than overly-optimistic government estimates, somewhere in the low single digits. Building a less efficient energy infrastructure will stifle development in the third world and lower standards of living. Of course, people in China and India understand this which is why they are building new coal plants hand over fist. One new coal plant raised eyebrows as it was built to support the massive energy needs of the nearby solar panel manufacturing facility.
In my belief, nuclear power is the one and only solution to solving the energy crisis while preserving the environment. Sadly, the environmental movement has prevented nuclear energy from reaching its full potential. In my opinion, organizations like Greenpeace bear a higher share of responsibility for climate change than oil companies like Exxon.
I'm sure I'll get pushback on a lot of this, and I could do a better job with citations, etc.. It really deserves an effort post but buried in the thread this feels like the max level of effort that can be justified.
Yeah, I agree with you on all these points. As an environmentalist it often feels my biggest opponents are other environmentalists. : (
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link