>>Fundamentalist Christianity is sexier than libertarianism unless you mix in easy abortion and techno-utopianism. (Read some Virginia Postrel. Bleah!)
Full on individualism is thus incompatible with human reproduction. Women with small children absolutely need help and protection -- from some combination of family, village, tribe, society, and/or government.
This is an interesting point. And with men currently on sabbatical, where else can they look but the State?
This message is aimed at readers on campus, in college towns, or on the Left Coast. (While I absolutely agree that global warming is not the immediate top environmental priority, it might be a big deal in the long run. Alas, I don't have the time to hit the books to have a real opinion, other than catching the obviously bad arguments from *both* sides.)
There has been a "warming" trend, but this is merely a return to the mean from the little ice age low. Also, warm periods are times of prosperity and cultural effusion.
If we are going to care about CO2, fine, but this is just an argument for clean nuclear energy. Of more import to the particular environment we actually experience rather than the abstract of "climate" is preventing overpopulation by mass immigration.
The second Green Old Deal is....nuclear energy. See how easy that is? You just out greened Al Gore and you don't even believe that the CO2 trend is all that worrisome.
As for the overpopulation by mass immigration, I hit on that in the first post of Rule 11. Ecotopia and open borders don't mix. Ecotopians who don't close their borders become an endangered subspecies. THAT's how we make the Left Coast end the sanctuary cities nonsense. Bring back up issues that the LEFT was preaching 50 years ago.
Rhetoric, while strong, will not move the NGOs that set herd shibboleths. Unfortunately for us, the Sierra Club was purchased for immigration by Uncle Benjamin. Without our own Old Money Foundations funding a RW Non Profit NGO sphere, I don't see how we change this.
"In the 1960s the issue of the environmental impact of population growth gained national and Sierra Club recognition. The Sierra Club focused initially on access to, and education about, family planning to achieve population stabilization. Some Sierra Club volunteer leaders pushed a position that to protect the United States and global environment it was important to limit the total number of Americans including US immigration numbers. From 1989 - 1996, the Sierra Club had a national policy to greatly limit immigration. That policy was changed in 1996 by national votes of the board and membership to be neutral on immigration. In response to the vote, an anti-immigration slate of candidates ran for the Board of Directors in 1998 and placed the issue before a vote of the membership; again Sierra Club membership voted it down. In 2004, anti-immigration advocates again tried to elect an anti-immigration slate to the Board of Directors. Sierra Club volunteer leaders organized a campaign (Groundswell Sierra) and defeated the anti-immigrant candidates."
Political views are inherited. Yes, there probably should be good girls among the green girls, but often these are watermelons (red inside), who care not so much about nature, but about justifications for a big state and betrayal. It's worrying to go into a field like this.
I've known both. I've interacted with greens of the "In my feminist reality" mindset and with hippie green types who worked on the Ron Paul R3VOLution. If you join my private chat area (open to all subscribers, including free) I can give more details.
I beg to differ on the inherited political views. Political arguments at Thanksgiving dinner are a trope for a reason. And political teamism is often a strategy rather than a true belief. Many people side with one party or another over a very narrow range of issues. This includes many who echo party talking points.
Right now, Team D is destroying the organic coffee shop utopias which are inhabited by progressives. A good time for competition...
>>Fundamentalist Christianity is sexier than libertarianism unless you mix in easy abortion and techno-utopianism. (Read some Virginia Postrel. Bleah!)
I would love to know what you mean by this.
Full on individualism is thus incompatible with human reproduction. Women with small children absolutely need help and protection -- from some combination of family, village, tribe, society, and/or government.
This is an interesting point. And with men currently on sabbatical, where else can they look but the State?
It's a viscous cycle. One that needs to be broken.
The "warming" hysteria is purest bunk and lunacy, but mouthing the words can help with actual issues like forestry and game animal management.
I hope you already have a wife, or live in an area where people aren't freaking out about global warming.
Both.
Then no worries for you.
This message is aimed at readers on campus, in college towns, or on the Left Coast. (While I absolutely agree that global warming is not the immediate top environmental priority, it might be a big deal in the long run. Alas, I don't have the time to hit the books to have a real opinion, other than catching the obviously bad arguments from *both* sides.)
There has been a "warming" trend, but this is merely a return to the mean from the little ice age low. Also, warm periods are times of prosperity and cultural effusion.
If we are going to care about CO2, fine, but this is just an argument for clean nuclear energy. Of more import to the particular environment we actually experience rather than the abstract of "climate" is preventing overpopulation by mass immigration.
The second Green Old Deal is....nuclear energy. See how easy that is? You just out greened Al Gore and you don't even believe that the CO2 trend is all that worrisome.
As for the overpopulation by mass immigration, I hit on that in the first post of Rule 11. Ecotopia and open borders don't mix. Ecotopians who don't close their borders become an endangered subspecies. THAT's how we make the Left Coast end the sanctuary cities nonsense. Bring back up issues that the LEFT was preaching 50 years ago.
https://rulesforreactionaries.substack.com/p/rule-11-exploit-the-environmentalists
Rhetoric, while strong, will not move the NGOs that set herd shibboleths. Unfortunately for us, the Sierra Club was purchased for immigration by Uncle Benjamin. Without our own Old Money Foundations funding a RW Non Profit NGO sphere, I don't see how we change this.
"In the 1960s the issue of the environmental impact of population growth gained national and Sierra Club recognition. The Sierra Club focused initially on access to, and education about, family planning to achieve population stabilization. Some Sierra Club volunteer leaders pushed a position that to protect the United States and global environment it was important to limit the total number of Americans including US immigration numbers. From 1989 - 1996, the Sierra Club had a national policy to greatly limit immigration. That policy was changed in 1996 by national votes of the board and membership to be neutral on immigration. In response to the vote, an anti-immigration slate of candidates ran for the Board of Directors in 1998 and placed the issue before a vote of the membership; again Sierra Club membership voted it down. In 2004, anti-immigration advocates again tried to elect an anti-immigration slate to the Board of Directors. Sierra Club volunteer leaders organized a campaign (Groundswell Sierra) and defeated the anti-immigrant candidates."
https://www.sierraclub.org/equity/journey/population-control-and-immigration
> Leadership is Sexy Too
Adopting a stupid economic position in order to get laid isn't leadership.
But, what you describe does sound like a great strategy to meet the mother of one's future step-children.
Objectivism is a stupid economic position.
Abandoning unwanted children is not maximizing utility.
The negative utility and misery from easy divorce is enormous.
Running up the national credit card and calling it Growth is AOC level stupid.
Political views are inherited. Yes, there probably should be good girls among the green girls, but often these are watermelons (red inside), who care not so much about nature, but about justifications for a big state and betrayal. It's worrying to go into a field like this.
I've known both. I've interacted with greens of the "In my feminist reality" mindset and with hippie green types who worked on the Ron Paul R3VOLution. If you join my private chat area (open to all subscribers, including free) I can give more details.
I beg to differ on the inherited political views. Political arguments at Thanksgiving dinner are a trope for a reason. And political teamism is often a strategy rather than a true belief. Many people side with one party or another over a very narrow range of issues. This includes many who echo party talking points.
Right now, Team D is destroying the organic coffee shop utopias which are inhabited by progressives. A good time for competition...