site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   16082 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 19, 2022

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.

16
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I see “personal carbon credits” as the new horizon, with opposition being taken down quickly with accusations of racism and/or conspiracy theory

Unlikely, given how fast transition towards photovoltaics and such is currently happening. Also fusion.

Degrowth people exist, but they're not convincing others.

As we’re seeing, photovoltaics and wind power are terrible from an energy security perspective. Nuclear isn’t, but it won’t get built.

Distributed system is terrible from energy security perspective? Really?

As for amount of energy, there's enough investment that at worst there would be some years with lower supply. Maybe shortages during one or two months of winter. That's not exactly apocalyptic.

Distributed system is terrible from energy security perspective? Really?

Theoretically, or actually existing distributed systems?

There are new geothermal projects which are pretty cool, obviously can't build them everywhere but there is more hope than people seem willing to admit to on either side of this debate.

30MW is chump change sadly. They're knocking down a dam that provides ten times that with no plan for replacement. (it'll be gas turbines or blackouts, depending on how much power the greens get)

Obviously a low-carbon energy infrastructure which actually works can be built, but, well, no one wants to do that. Progressives want a green new deal that seems to pick its projects based on their unreliability, conservatives want a gas-fired grid, and moderates want a series of tax credits that cost money to install photovoltaic panels on the residential roofs which don’t cover energy use.

Obviously a low-carbon energy infrastructure which actually works can be built

Obviously? If nuclear's off the table, I don't think this is obvious at all.

Nuclear being off the table is the reason it will never be built.

And yet here I have linked a reliable zero emission project worth somewhere in the ballpark of $60 million being built in california of all places.

Photovoltaics are the mechanism that turns "decarbonization" into "winter blackouts". Replace 50gw of coal with 50gw of solar (CF-adjusted), arguing that these are equivalent. Next winter your grid will collapse and rationing based on "social value" can begin.

See this graph of current germany power production showing solar and wind delivering nothing during the highest loads of the year. (Note this doesn't even include heating, because sky-high kwh prices mean they still use coal and gas for one of the largest winter loads!)

If you talk to any of the greens pushing "fundamental cultural changes", they are all targeting degrowth.

Fusion is irrelevant - there's nothing that work, and practically all methods that do work would result in massive amounts of irradiated parts after decomissioning - something the green lobby would pounce upon, knowing full well that to a typical HR manager, there's no difference between e.g. spent fuel and material that's neutron-activated reactor parts due to intense neutron flux.

Photovoltaics are worse than irrelevant, without corresponding battery tech (that doesn't exist) they're just a way of making your energy production much more expensive by making it bimodal. You have to invest into conventional power plants that you only run some of the time.

Degrowth people exist, but they're not convincing others.

They don't have to convince anyone. They're and have been writing EU policy for decades. At the moment, the plan is to carbon-tax everything by 2032. They're also just about to close down something like a third of Dutch farming sector due to 'nitrogen emissions'.

They might become accountable about three years after a severe economic collapse, by which time most of them will have decamped for the US or Australia or someplace.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats