Talk-Polywell.org

Bill Whittle's "The Web Of Trust":
http://pajamasmedia.com/ejectejecteject ... -of-trust/

I think that this is one of the best pieces on how the world really works. This is why i think that civilization is so much better than the alternatives. This is also why I hate those who willfully want to destroy civilization for their own twisted idea of what progress represents.

Strobes don't have filaments. And we haven't used rubber to cover wire in many decades.

But of course he is correct about the essence.

Civilizations fall because people bitch and complain when the electricity is off for fifteen minutes, and never give a thought to the fact that it has been on for their entire lives.

Amen. Unfortunately, I have to plead guilty.

Wow, that was an intense read. I agree with much of it.

Fortunately for us when the east cost lost power the people stayed sane.

Josh Cryer wrote:I agree with much of it.

Fortunately for us when the east cost lost power the people stayed sane.

I'm not so sure you understood the message, particularly the final part that I quoted. It's about taking the fruits of civilization for granted while at the same time denigrating that same civilization. It has nothing to do with people going insane when they lose their electricity.

You can't "agree with much of it": you either agree with all of it or none of it. To say otherwise indicates you did not understand, because in the end he had but one thing to say. Everything else was explanation for that one thing.

Josh,

We are in the air. The Jets are running. We have a bunch of nutters trying to turn off the fuel flow because they don't like the smell of JP-4. And other cranks trying to shut down the engines because they are too loud.

Is it clearer now?

taniwha wrote: You can't "agree with much of it": you either agree with all of it or none of it. To say otherwise indicates you did not understand, because in the end he had but one thing to say. Everything else was explanation for that one thing.

I'm not sure I agree, civilisation was build on disagreements, forged on revolution.

The academic process is at its best when people disagree. Infact without academics speaking their mind and arguing with each other there would not be civilisation.

Capitalism thrives on people complaining when the lights go out for fifteen minutes then some entrepreneur or engineer comes along and thinks "how can I sort this out and make a bit of money at the same time."

Whining about trivialities is how things get better, whining about social problems is how they get solved as long as people think carefully about whether the "solution" will work or just make matters worse

Civilisation is generally improved by people taking the bits they like and changing the bits they don't.

If the caveman sitting in the cold next to the guy whining about how cold it was, said "Shut up and be grateful for the miraculous invention of wearing animal skins" then we would not have invented fire.

taniwha wrote:It has nothing to do with people going insane when they lose their electricity.

I am pro-civilization and I have spent a decade of my life arguing against neo-Luddites and anti-civ types. They often say that people will go insane when the lights go off, that civilization is precariously positioned, and that any tip in one direction will break it. The East Cost Outage proved that people, within this "crazy" civilization of ours, did in fact not fit their poorly thought out stereotype.

You can't "agree with much of it": you either agree with all of it or none of it.

Nonsense, the patriotic hogwash was irrelevant. The bashing of the "spectacle" was, likewise, a commonly Luddite point of view. Which is precisely why I made the "insane" comment. He was positing the same neo-Luddite POV I have heard for a decade.

To say otherwise indicates you did not understand, because in the end he had but one thing to say. Everything else was explanation for that one thing.

Binary thinking. Reality is, much of you take for granted the things of civilization that you enjoy.

Josh Cryer wrote:They often say that people will go insane when the lights go off, that civilization is precariously positioned, and that any tip in one direction will break it. The East Cost Outage proved that people, within this "crazy" civilization of ours, did in fact not fit their poorly thought out stereotype.
[...]Binary thinking.

Seems binary to conclude people won't go nuts if the lights really do go off, based only on a temporary and partial episode.

Betruger wrote:Seems binary to conclude people won't go nuts if the lights really do go off, based only on a temporary and partial episode.

American culture has resulted in a society that, when met with catastrophe, tends to work together, rather than work apart. This does not mean all American's will work together nor that all American's will work apart, but that it is more likely, from the evidence I have seen, that American's will work together. It's not binary so much weighted.

We can list catastrophes, if you want. If you disagree that American's are more likely to stand up when catastrophes happen, then I'd need a lot of evidence for that.

I don't think it's an apples to apples comparison. A region without power temporarily. One particular region, one moment in time, one instance. Just a discrete observation.

I am pro-civilization and I have spent a decade of my life arguing against neo-Luddites and anti-civ types.

So I take it you are against shutting down coal fired power plants until a cheaper alternative is in hand? Not on the drawing board - in hand.

And am I to understand you are against energy (which makes civilization possible) taxes?

MSimon wrote:So I take it you are against shutting down coal fired power plants until a cheaper alternative is in hand? Not on the drawing board - in hand.

Yes.

And am I to understand you are against energy (which makes civilization possible) taxes?

Making carbon more expensive makes other alternatives cheaper. Like nuclear, which investors are too afraid to touch.

Josh and jmc: I don't actually care whether you agree with it or not, I was only saying that from what Josh was saying, it seemed he did not understand what was being said.

And jmc: it seems you might not quite understand it (or maybe what I said): there's no mention in the article on how our civilization was built (indeed, it was built on plenty of conflict). Rather, the article talks about how our civilization is a vast, highly interconnected network, where even a humble pencil has many people making it possible for you to use that pencil (whether you agree or not is another matter).

American culture has resulted in a society that, when met with catastrophe, tends to work together, rather than work apart.

Uhm, what happened in the wake of Katrina proved you wrong.