Rethious t1_jdubzzb wrote

IIRC most recent anthropological/archaeological evidence regarding early human society is fairly pessimistic. Evidence suggests life was much more Hobbes than Rousseau. ie, an egalitarianism of violence.


Rethious t1_j99a0qy wrote

Unlike a modern band, an orchestra or classical ensemble usually doesn’t have a particular set of songs that it knows. It is expected to perform a variety of pieces throughout the entire spectrum of world music.

If, for example, you had an orchestra memorize every symphony it played you’d have a massive decrease in the number of pieces it can perform each year in exchange for the unclear benefits of memorization.


Rethious t1_j87lh5s wrote

There’s no bribery involved, Hochul is just a well-documented idiot. There was nothing forcing her to agree to what the lobbyists from the companies said, she was just genuinely swayed and signed their suggested amendments.


Rethious t1_j5njx1h wrote

The way the paradox of tolerance is smugly intoned as though it’s already the law of the land is genuinely one of the worse uses of philosophy I’ve seen.

Who do you trust to condemn someone as unworthy of the toleration of society? To say the intolerant should not be tolerated is like saying only good people should be allowed to vote: it’s a totally subjective judgment.

Giving the state the power to suppress those it deems intolerant will not protect liberty or democracy.


Rethious t1_j4k9h10 wrote

Looking into it, Copernicus was called an idiot more than he was a blasphemer. He had noticed something that was correct, but it was hard for others to believe because it meant the entire field of astronomy up to that point had been wrong. The theological argument was secondary to the scientific criticism.

The criticism was in good faith, and debate over it led to further investigation and the Copernican Revolution.


Rethious t1_j2vfj7r wrote

There doesn’t need to be immediate gratification. There are many ways for climate mitigation solutions to satisfy greed. You get much further selling people a solar-punk future than you do by trying to scare them. Doomsday predictions only convince people its futile to make an effort.


Rethious t1_j2vcir0 wrote

It is a fact that wildlife populations have declined. This is a problem to reckoned with, I’d argue more successfully with an optimistic attitude than a pessimistic one.

Evidence shows that people are more greedy than fearful. To convince people to combat climate change, it is more useful to appeal to what they have to gain than what they have to lose.


Rethious t1_j2ti12g wrote

Carbon capture and free energy won’t save us, but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be invested in. It’s a fine line in that they’re both essential and deserve heavy investment, but shouldn’t be used as an excuse to neglect conservation efforts.

Optimism doesn’t mean being in denial about the challenges we face.


Rethious t1_j2t9pmg wrote

This attitude is why pessimism leads nowhere but the grave. Every day, tens of millions of people are working to apply existing solutions to mitigate climate change or to develop new ones. You’re even hyperfocusing on certain elements of society to paint covid as a loss, and not as the tremendous achievement of medical science it was to develop safe, effective, and mass produceable vaccines with ground breaking technology.

To say that there is no hope is a self-fulfilling prophecy and does not match the evidence we have.


Rethious t1_j2sru7v wrote

If Thunberg is to be taken as the “arch-pessimist” of this article, then that is not exactly a ringing endorsement of the approach. Thunberg is a high profile activist figure, but her pessimism leaves her vulnerable to attack by her opponents who may offer a brighter, or at least less alarmist version of the future. It also weakens her impact on the sympathetic, those most directly pressured. They call her and have her castigate them for ruining the world as a secular penance.

Climate change calls for a specific action to address it. Objectively speaking, there is a lot that can still be done. The only ethically correct message when it comes to climate change is a specific, effective one.

Pessimism will never be as motivating as telling people about the bright future ahead if they invest in climate mitigation now.

Over optimism can become carelessness. But even a small amount of pessimism leads to fatalism.


Rethious t1_j285mlf wrote

Geralt learns pretty quickly that refusing to get involved doesn’t work out. Refusing to choose means an endorsement of the status quo by inaction. To choose between a greater and lesser evil is an unfortunate fact of life. Triage, for example, is a fairly irresistible example of this. The choice must be made to allow some to die so that others may live.


Rethious t1_j136bns wrote

Automatic weapons weren’t new. Every squad had an automatic rifleman, and submachine-guns were used widely. The question was whether it was worth equipping every rifleman with an automatic weapon. This wasn’t obvious at the time.

The M1 and M14 had superior range and stopping power. Being able to reliably kill the enemy and not end up outranged are intuitively important. Semi-automatic weapons also mean you don’t have your entire army burning through ammunition. When you’re fighting expeditionary wars, this is a major concern because every bullet has to get shipped halfway around the world.


Rethious t1_iy8y9v2 wrote

I wasn’t going to get into that, but there were a variety of people involved in the conspiracy. Some were just dissatisfied with Hitler’s leadership, others felt it was a moral issue.