Comments on: On Ecological Realism

By: Hadley Bennett

Hadley Bennett — Mon, 03 Nov 2014 06:33:57 +0000

Thanks for the comment. I’ll bring it up with some of the other fellas.

By: soapjackal

soapjackal — Mon, 03 Nov 2014 04:23:22 +0000

Good all around. The replacement of the modern university system with something more in keeping with its origin (such as platos academy) is always a good idea. It is one of the better projects to work towards.

“The Antiversity is a truth provider and advises on that basis ”

actually implementing and appropriately using (as opposed to the abject failure of peer review) rigor when it comes to intellectual thought is the current mountain. Getting past that will solve many a problem.

By: soapjackal

soapjackal — Mon, 03 Nov 2014 04:20:12 +0000

for some reason latin seems like a good path:

Illegitimis nil carborundum

Vltima ratio regvm

Ivs gentivm

By: Coppersmith

Coppersmith — Mon, 03 Nov 2014 04:12:57 +0000

And of course, in my suggestion that you think about the implications of your word choices, I have a mangled second-to-last sentence.

I suppose we are all capable of unnecessary repetition, I suppose.

By: Coppersmith

Coppersmith — Mon, 03 Nov 2014 04:09:37 +0000

Off topic, of course, but may I humbly suggest that you change your site-wide tag-line, “Not your grandfather’s conservatism”? It seems like an oddly defensive and somewhat weak statement for what is in the main a very clear-thinking website with plenty of backbone.

You want to distance Social Matters from “grandfather’s conservatism” and yet you invoke the words “grandfather’s conservatism” at the top of the main page and at the top of every single article. And on a sort of pre-grammatical level, sitting right there when the eye first sweeps the page are the suggestions “grandfather,” “conservatism,” and the negative word “not.”

I think this site is one of the best on the internet and I love to read and ponder your articles, but I’m basically already a convert. For people who first encounter this site, perhaps less prominence to this rather defensive and negatively-phrased tag line would better represent the ideas contained herein, for those first encountering them.

Thanks for providing such valuable articles, and I hope I’m not out of line with my suggestion.

By: old coyote

old coyote — Sun, 02 Nov 2014 03:04:59 +0000

A well-written, and thoughtful essay on the various aspects of a complex subject. As a AGW skeptic, I agreed long ago with Michael Crichton’s speech in which he outlined point-for-point the religious fundamentalist parallels of the environmentalist movement to “normal” religious movements of our Christian society. The atheist worshipers of the priests in white lab coats some time ago co-opted cultural and societal conversations regarding most, if not all, aspects of the “ecology” or “environmental” movement. “Scientism” is a valuable term to describe something which does not exist in actual science: consensus. And normally only existed in other political movements in the the past: the overt co-option of those whose credentials “qualify” them to preach what makes the puppet masters more money. Political movements to benefit the monied interests are not new; the massive whoring of “scientists” (who have little or no knowledge in the subject they seem to enjoy preaching about) on the political grant payrolls is probably at an all time high, percentage wise. Humans are emotional creatures, and “feel good” is all most them will ever use to make decisions. Thus, running with the crowd, mob behaviour, etc. Reason and logic are the basics of Science – but prostituted political toadies will fall to the wayside eventually when their BS becomes apparent. Hopefully, not too many third worlders (or first-worlders!) will freeze to death before it becomes obvious to all the world is cooling again (and has not warmed for the last 17 years- lets pray we don’t get another Maunder Minimum!) and all our high energy sources (fossil fuels) have been locked away… Perhaps that is what they want, though- not a nice way to achieve population decline.
I do agree with your points in re toxic and hazardous waste/ pollution- and this seems to be a problem with so many conversations about all these acrimonious subjects in our society: they seem to combine so many various realities with outright lies that it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to disagree with a lie without being “disqualified” because the other “items” in the agenda do have a basis in reality… deliberate?