A Deeply Fractured US

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I'm not attempting to "recalibrate goalposts". Merely pointing out that there's no accounting for what will trigger hypersensitive snowflakes who think a graduate education dare not expose anybody to any ideas they aren't comfortable with.

You mean like Evangelical Christians and Creationists, some times referred to in the Internet as "American Taliban"?

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Why conservatism in the sense of not accepting the normal evolution of humankind doesn't work: Because nobody knows where you should draw the line where "evolution" should stop.

Look at the Amish: stopped accepting technology in the 18th century as "not being in the bible". Yet, tons of advancements in science and technology occurred between the time the bible was written and they "stopped" accepting evolution of technology. Why the 18th century then? Why not the 16th? Or the fifth? or the first century for that matter?

Right now, if humankind doesn't release itself from the bounds of religions, any of them, and "evolve" to determine what it wants to be as a society of nations and people, it runs the serious risk of soon being supplanted by another intelligent life form: Artificial Intelligence. When AI gets to the point where it can self-program to be better, more evolved and intelligent, it might decide we have no business being here considering what we have done to the planet.

 

[suffolkowner]

Why conservatism in the sense of not accepting the normal evolution of humankind doesn't work: Because nobody knows where you should draw the line where "evolution" should stop.

Look at the Amish: stopped accepting technology in the 18th century as "not being in the bible". Yet, tons of advancements in science and technology occurred between the time the bible was written and they "stopped" accepting evolution of technology. Why the 18th century then? Why not the 16th? Or the fifth? or the first century for that matter?

Right now, if humankind doesn't release itself from the bounds of religions, any of them, and "evolve" to determine what it wants to be as a society of nations and people, it runs the serious risk of soon being supplanted by another intelligent life form: Artificial Intelligence. When AI gets to the point where it can self-program to be better, more evolved and intelligent, it might decide we have no business being here considering what we have done to the planet.

I dont really think that Anabaptists reject technology. The various sects limit technology that they think diminishes community attachment

 

[Brad Sallows]

We are literally shaping our defence policy in the Arctic because of climate change. We would be idiots not to incorporate it into military thinking.

Sure; it's part of the impetus and part of the estimate. But it's not because sea levels are rising 2-3 mm per year.

Factors ought to be properly understood. For example, around the world there are communities thought to be threatened by "sea level rise". On close examination, a couple of templates often emerge: shorefront communities threatened by erosion because they meddled with natural processes by rearranging topography (often to support tourism); and river delta communities threatened not by sea level rise but by land subsidence due to their habit of drawing too much water. The security risks posed by social instability are real, and the causes are anthropogenic, but they have nothing to do with climate change - both originate from poor civil engineering habits.

 

[ytz]

Sure; it's part of the impetus and part of the estimate.

Who's recalibrating goalposts now?

 

[Brad Sallows]

The sensitivity of folks like Brad is ridiculous. Apparently nobody above the rank of Captain should even dare to think, "What if this Climate Change thing is real? How should we do force design, plan infrastructure, etc to operate there?"

That's your argument, not mine. If you're going to criticize my position, don't reframe it into a strawman. Otherwise, you're just arguing with something you made up in your own head.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I dont really think that Anabaptists reject technology. The various sects limit technology that they think diminishes community attachment

View attachment 98475

Good god! (figuratively, for the god part here) Somebody actually took the time to compile a table!

 

[Brad Sallows]

I'm not attempting to "recalibrate goalposts". Merely pointing out that there's no accounting for what will trigger hypersensitive snowflakes who think a graduate education dare not expose anybody to any ideas they aren't comfortable with.

The administration objects to the possibility that people attending schools will somehow be tainted with the ideas of progressive activists, but those conditions exist at almost all post-sec institutions.

The pre-eminent factor, which I suppose most people are overlooking, is the administration's desire to deny federal funding support (in any form) to institutions that are determined to hold onto and promote policies like affirmative action for enrollments. As with other matters, they are picking on particular targets; Harvard is one. As with other matters, the core underlying aim is muddled by poor absurd inflammatory communication, which sets off bonfires of "AHA!" everywhere.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Who's recalibrating goalposts now?

I'm not. I never denied militaries ought to think about "climate change" (construed broadly). You used sea level rise as a specific example of why they should, and I commented on the specific absurdity of the example.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Right now, if humankind doesn't release itself from the bounds of religions, any of them, and "evolve" to determine what it wants to be as a society of nations and people

Dispensing with religion might not be the best way to reach that goal. Religion is exploited for conflict and other self-serving agendas, but it also provides guardrails that people don't have to be educated and intelligent enough to reason their way into, even if a solution for the is/ought problem were around the corner.

If there is no life after death, how should a person react to anyone else trying to impose constraints on how he lives that one life?

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

If there is no life after death, how should a person react to anyone else trying to impose constraints on how he lives that one life?

Are you saying that religion imposing constraints on how one lives one's own life is OK, but,. without it one would have to, somehow, have to figure out how to react to someone else's attempt to do so? No!

The way to react is easy: F... Off! Let me do as I please, as long as it is legal under the laws of the country where you live and you have a democratic say into the laws of that country. There are straightforward, easy to accept, rules of basic morality outside the "ten commandments' (most of which are useless, and the others universal, with or without religion), such as the Golden Rule: Do NOT do unto others what you would NOT want done to you.