Gather 'round children, and let me spin a yarn of the old days when human-computer interface guidelines existed, and were created using actual science instead of fashion trends...
So, my ideological transition went from Reagan Republican to Goldwater libertarian to Rothbardian Anarchist.
Personally, I am socially boring, somewhat socially conservative, and evangelically religious. I don't (politically) care what other people do to themselves; as long as they and their government don't do it to me or my family.
I've really given up on government as an entity that can create moral good in the world; it seems that historical attempts to have government play that role have turned out poorly, both for the people involved and the morality being coerced.
I've tried to explain where my head is at so you can try and tailor the message in a way I might understand.
Can you help me understand what the "war on women" rhetoric is about?
Assume that I'm an intelligent person, with degrees in Math and CS, and extensively educated in history, medicine, politics, and economics.
Yet, despite this, I cannot for the life of me understand how people with different ideas came to those ideas via any plausible mental process. It seems to me that there are fallacies all around - why aren't they seeing them?
I want to assume that they are acting with good intentions, but I am unable to debug or understand them and their decision making process.
So, this is a legitimate request for help, and not a thinly veiled attempt to demean or attack someone.
Will you explain what the "war on women" is in a way that will cause me to want to listen? Explain what things are included in this war, and what things aren't.
I mean, my inclination is to throw a flag on the play before it even begins; a political "war on women" appears to suppose that all women should think and want the same things politically, which is self-evidently insulting to women and denies their essential individuality.
For instance, the only people I know personally who are tireless anti-abortion activists (and I know several) are all women. Are they part of the war on women?
I'll stop, and hope you craft a well-intentioned response.
The one thing I want to point out is that you should recognize the name "Cass Sunstein"; he's not some random academic, he was part of the Obama administration, and has a bunch of ideas that you will find either kooky or great, depending on how you align politically:
He's also good about co-opting terms he disagrees with as a way to try and attack intellectual opposition. He calls a bunch of things libertarian that are flagrantly NOT libertarian, for instance.
Me too. Car, house, mailbox. We should probably add a yubikey though.
Totally agree. We put feeders on the hives in late winter / early spring for the same reasons. It's especially important here since blooming can be so variable.
my point was - bees don't freeze in winter, they starve.
Someone else covered this but is buried.
Bee colonies do not freeze in the winter. They starve.
We've been keeping bees in North Dakota, which is colder than wherever you are, for 7 years. All 3 of our colonies survived last winter. One is strong enough that we've split it this spring to try and prevent a swarm.
The way that bees operate in winter is amazing. The bees form a sphere, with the queen near its center. They vibrate their wings and bodies to create heat. The bees on the outside of the sphere obviously lose heat the fastest. The bees on the inside stay the warmest. The sphere of vibrating bees constantly turns itself inside out, over and over, so that the cooler outer edge bees return to the warm core and replenish their warmth, while the warm bees from the core circulate out towards the edges after they've recuperated.
This consumes lots of energy (and food).
As the cluster of bees does this, it moves upwards in the hive, consuming stored honey.
When they get to the top of the hive, they stop migrating. If they run out of honey, they die.
We use 2 deep supers and 1 medium honey super to over-winter our bees.
But just think of the awesome TV shows!
Oh how I wish I had mod points for you today...
and volunteer to help test. We have a steady stream of trolls available for review, a truly endless supply.
So I agree entirely with your sentiment, except I chuckled when you wrote that you live in Seattle.
What's funny about that is Seattle is also full of rich dumb people that make dumb decisions.
If you've done the Seattle underground history tour, you know that Seattle basically sunk into the sound long ago. The whole city history is replete with stories of stupid people that fought nature and lost.
Recently, the highway 99 project comes to mind
Well, I personally take the view that any society that forcibly sterilized 50% of its residents doesn't deserve to continue as a society.
I also don't think Malthus was correct.
Someone insinuated that I'd be ok with Jewish concentration camps if that resulted in a society that survived.
That's a hard question to answer. On one hand, what was done to the Jews was clearly immoral. On the other hand, a society that goes extinct isn't around to argue that it was a moral society. Heinlein noted that survival is somewhat of a precursor to moral behavior.
What we'd like to hope is that the choice between survival and violence against others is a false choice - that there is always a way to both survive and not harm others.
But that may not be the case for all societies in all situations.
It may be that the Native Americans came to the conclusion that you did -- that anything beyond a certain population was unsustainable given the technology level and resources they had available to them.
That may have been an eminently moral choice.
It also means that what they thought doesn't matter today - because there weren't enough of them to defend themselves against an invading society with different ideas.
Another question to wrestle with:
Why didn't the colonization and empire building go the other direction?
Why weren't the native Americans launching ocean going vessels towards Europe? Why, when the Europeans arrived, were the NAs unable to repel them?
Why were there so many top-notch German scientists and engineers in that society in the 1930s and 1940s? Why, given its amazing technological advantages, did Nazi Germany still ultimately lose the war?
If you want a really uncomfortable question: why was South Africa apparently a much nicer place -- for everyone -- under European management with the distasteful Apartheid policy? Why has that society _regressed_ since kicking out the colonial invaders?
There are books on these topics that take varying points of view.
My point is very simple: pining for primitive cultures is romantically appealing but intellectually dishonest. And holding our ancestors to the standards of today is also silly - we can only hold them to the standards of their day --- unless you mean to imply that there has been no human progress.
It is precisely the fact that the Western world has shown dramatic human progress - even at the cost of slowing its own rate of expansion and conquest - that we can be confident that Western Civilization has something to offer the world.
I don't believe that inside Nazi Germany nor in Stalinist Russia, there was the problem of a foreign empire clashing with an indigenous culture.
It seems the best American analogue to the experiences of those regimes was what was done to Japanese Americans in WW2 - which while awful, thankfully, doesn't hold a candle to what was done to the German Jews or the Soviet victims of Stalinism.
The history of the world is filled with violent tribal conflict, usually over the right to settle and tax a given piece of land.
The Jews and Nazis weren't fighting for control over Bavaria.
The Europeans did not set out with the goal of exterminating the native Americans. The NAs had their land taken from them by force, which is how it has always worked on this planet.
There are two general possibilities for how to proceed from here
1) convince people that taking land from other people is immoral
2) find additional land that is both unsettled and desirable
#1 is worth working on, and can show some real improvements, but will ultimately not be enough.
#2 is also worth working on, and why I am a space nutter, and why I am interested in how seasteading plays out.
A mix of #1 and #2 may help humanity not kill each other completely. We've gone almost 70 years with the ability to wipe ourselves out and we haven't done so yet. That's an encouraging indicator.
Small Part Native American here. Grandpa and mom are buried on the Res.
Not that my heritage should matter, but some people can't hear the message until they've decided what bucket to put the messenger in....
How is the way of life and/or world view of the Native Americans worth saving?
Same question for impoverished rural Africans?
We are having this conversation only because an objectively superior culture with an objectively superior propensity for technical development has built this amazing medium for our use.
My ancestors were excellent hunters, excellent farmers, and excellent stewards of natural resources. There are many things to admire and respect about what they did.
Ultimately, however, I'm glad I don't live in a house made of animal skin; I'm glad I have modern medicine; I'm glad my other ancestors - my white European ones - have shot themselves into space, and have opened a way for my children to someday get off this rock.
In many ways, Humans of all colors and shapes are still participating in the tribal violence that shaped native Americans and still shapes many Africans.
Some tribes are better run than others, with better results to show for it. Adapt or die.