Author Topic: Lazy Armchair Enthusiast Making Proposals For Change ITT  (Read 3592 times)

LuciferX

  • Metanoia
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 28062
  • fripping moncrey!
    • View Profile
Re: Lazy Armchair Enthusiast Making Proposals For Change ITT
« Reply #15 on: April 27, 2016, 02:53:48 am »
I think the word people are looking for here is "compassion".


But the scope of that word is too much for some monkeys to bear.
Compassion is a word we invented to give weak monkeys false hope.
Hic Salta?
________
Constant Eso-Opthamologist of Elicited Stopped-Clock Illusions, brings it back, or sinners just repent______

LMNO

  • Lubricated and Rabid Lungfish of Impending Sexdoom™
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 87070
  • Internet Fuckweasel of Haunted Pork Dimensions.
    • View Profile
    • Earfatigue Productions: When it has to sound like you give a shit.
Re: Lazy Armchair Enthusiast Making Proposals For Change ITT
« Reply #16 on: April 27, 2016, 03:33:17 am »
You're adorable.

LuciferX

  • Metanoia
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 28062
  • fripping moncrey!
    • View Profile
Re: Lazy Armchair Enthusiast Making Proposals For Change ITT
« Reply #17 on: April 27, 2016, 05:55:55 am »
Sometimes, being wrong's the most endearing thing about primates ;)
Hic Salta?
________
Constant Eso-Opthamologist of Elicited Stopped-Clock Illusions, brings it back, or sinners just repent______

Cramulus

  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 130574
    • View Profile
    • Cramul.us
Re: Lazy Armchair Enthusiast Making Proposals For Change ITT
« Reply #18 on: April 27, 2016, 06:41:51 pm »
Could it be possible for a free agent to reason that their capacity to act independently is inextricably interrelated to the free agency of others? Can my rational self-interest be extensive enough to include the effect it has on others?

Yeah, it's simple: don't conflate the self and the ego.

The true self is bigger than that little old thing.

LuciferX

  • Metanoia
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 28062
  • fripping moncrey!
    • View Profile
Re: Lazy Armchair Enthusiast Making Proposals For Change ITT
« Reply #19 on: April 27, 2016, 07:29:48 pm »
Could it be possible for a free agent to reason that their capacity to act independently is inextricably interrelated to the free agency of others? Can my rational self-interest be extensive enough to include the effect it has on others?

Yeah, it's simple: don't conflate the self and the ego.

The true self is bigger than that little old thing.

Perhaps, I just can't see it, because my ego is so HUGE.
Hic Salta?
________
Constant Eso-Opthamologist of Elicited Stopped-Clock Illusions, brings it back, or sinners just repent______

Cramulus

  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 130574
    • View Profile
    • Cramul.us
Re: Lazy Armchair Enthusiast Making Proposals For Change ITT
« Reply #20 on: April 27, 2016, 08:02:23 pm »
We are not islands - we're barely even individuals.

You are also your lover, you are your whole family, your community, your species. When something gets hurt, the hurt doesn't stay isolated, it affects the system.

The exact spot where you end and I begin is like an optical illusion - its not actually there, but context clues make it appear to be. When somebody close to you dies, a part of you died too.

This is what the libertarian ideology misses. It presents the self as a castle surrounded by high walls - not a dynamic, sprawling city. Not a net of jewels that reflect each other.



http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/88/wcw-rose-obsolete.html

LuciferX

  • Metanoia
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 28062
  • fripping moncrey!
    • View Profile
Re: Lazy Armchair Enthusiast Making Proposals For Change ITT
« Reply #21 on: April 27, 2016, 10:14:04 pm »
Yea, I don't even (really) know what a libertarian is/means, but I do find myself (more than I'd wish to admit) falling for the "rugged individualist" full Marlborough flavor of self-reliance/determination.  At least it can serve as indicator for when my ego pretends to take the reigns...

...

The exact spot where you end and I begin is like an optical illusion - its not actually there, but context clues make it appear to be. When somebody close to you dies, a part of you died too.

This is what the libertarian ideology misses. It presents the self as a castle surrounded by high walls - not a dynamic, sprawling city. Not a net of jewels that reflect each other.



http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/88/wcw-rose-obsolete.html
And yet that unity remains accommodating enough to include within itself not just futile and false distinctions, but an actual difference that concerns me.  There is not unity only in opposition to difference; there is also unity "inside" the difference.  My monkey exists as the fictitious interface of that illusory boundary, struggling perpetually for a sign of relief that instead undermines itself.
Hic Salta?
________
Constant Eso-Opthamologist of Elicited Stopped-Clock Illusions, brings it back, or sinners just repent______

PoFP

  • Word-Salad Enthusiast and Terrified Meat Sack
  • Outlandish
  • ***
  • Posts: 13068
    • View Profile
Re: Lazy Armchair Enthusiast Making Proposals For Change ITT
« Reply #22 on: April 30, 2016, 04:01:37 pm »
Environmental Progress:

In summary, it sounds like you're saying (and please correct me if I'm missing it - I don't want to put words in your mouth) that we just need big corporations to come up with innovative ways to go green which are cheaper than the traditional ways. And that we shouldn't be coercing corporations into "going green", we need them to do it on their own.

I mean, yeah, that all sounds good, but how do you do it?

Personally, I don't think there is a way to get everybody to cooperate when there are such big benefits to defecting. I think you need regulations.

The non-libertarian FAQ has a great example of why you'll never see that altruistic, cooperative behavior emerge out of mutual self-interest:

Quote
[Removed for brevity, but still read-through]


There was a time where that was the direction I would come from. Total cooperation of people in a free society. Ah, my teen years - Much like infant diapers, in that they were innocent, but full of shit.

While I do lean right of center, I don't fall for the libertarian pipe-dream.

My meaning was to explain the process by which you didn't have to rely on any cooperation of anyone other than, say, some close friends/business partners. I was describing what was possible with the hard work of just a few people in the Freedum™ of the American economy.

Let me explain by first outlining my issues with government regulation:

I think we can all agree that when our gubmint decides to take up management and regulation of something (Usually something lobbied for), it tends to be wasteful, inefficient, and over-bearing. Endless Red Tape that makes things hard for the right companies, as well as the wrong companies. Not only that, but when regulations and laws are defined, they tend to stick around, long after they are necessary. They could write a law requiring cooling of gorblefuts to certain temperatures during production. But after a few months of R&D, they are able to eliminate the cooling process with the advent of toodlesnoots. But the way the law works, if those gorblefuts aren't at the regulatory low temperature during production, then you get fined, or worse. Regulations become outdated and arbitrary when the market and innovation moves on.

Now, I'm not saying bad companies shouldn't be fined or strong-armed at all for not meeting certain basic standards. But Environmental Protection is young, and can still be innovated and enforced by the market. Green business is more profitable, fundamentally, regardless of what lazy older companies would tell you. All I'm saying is that gubmint regulation isn't the only answer. I'd much prefer Corporate Espeeuhnoj™, or market strong-arming, or even partial monopolization over endless Red Tape.

I mean, you could look at the OP as a business proposal or partnership offer. How would you like to work up into an existing company, or create a new one, and make it transition to energy independence and Green practices? And once we've done that, we use our profits to expose the inferiority of the non-green system. I mean, let's go FULL TRANSPARENCY on their asses. We advertise our Green success everywhere, and drill it into the populace's head.

WE paid x for our solar panels and windmills and YOU pay 1/3x EVERY MONTH for NATURAL GAS. After 3 MONTHS, we're BEATING YOUR ASS with EFFICIENCY.

I mean, we could probably change the world if we advertised on one of the most popular sites on the internet: Pornhub

 :lulz: << This sMaRT Son of a BItch is
                       GETING RICH
                   running companies
                  ON GREEN ENERGY
                   and basically
                YOUR FUCKING STUPID

I call it Profit With Compassion™

In all seriousness, demonstration and pressure exertion of just a few companies can change the market. You can use the profits of a company to set up gradual energy source conversion programs that you can GIVE OR SELL to other companies. Not because it was financially profitable for you to do so, but because it was beneficial to society. And it's not just YOU. It's US. WE can do this.

I, personally, am AWFUL at trying to get things done on my own. But if I have other people working with me to get things done, then I get an absurd drive to succeed. I fucking hate talking about theory. That's all you can do as a kid. But I'm not just a kid anymore. I have the ability to make a change, and so do you. Let's brainstorm some profitable investment and business methods that will get us funds to organize this. If we lack information, we look it up. We share our information. We discuss it. If you've already got connections, tell me what I need to know, and give me some time to catch up.

I want to show people that Profit With Compassion™ is possible. I wanna change modern business standards by example, not by force. Instead of arguing about economic theory, why don't we throw some bar stools?
Listen carefully. I don't have much time, and I only have 462 characters left. I'm a scientist from Area 52 (Area 51 was used to draw attention from Area 52, where the aliens were ACTUALLY stored) who was working on neural interfacing with networked devices. In an experiment gone wrong, I accidentally uploaded my mind to the internet. In the 2 seconds I had before my mind scrambled itself with the world's network traffic, I was able to store this snippet in this random internet signature. If you're reading this, let the world know tha

Cramulus

  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 130574
    • View Profile
    • Cramul.us
Re: Lazy Armchair Enthusiast Making Proposals For Change ITT
« Reply #23 on: May 02, 2016, 04:02:11 pm »
I think we can all agree that when our gubmint decides to take up management and regulation of something (Usually something lobbied for), it tends to be wasteful, inefficient, and over-bearing. Endless Red Tape that makes things hard for the right companies, as well as the wrong companies. Not only that, but when regulations and laws are defined, they tend to stick around, long after they are necessary. They could write a law requiring cooling of gorblefuts to certain temperatures during production. But after a few months of R&D, they are able to eliminate the cooling process with the advent of toodlesnoots. But the way the law works, if those gorblefuts aren't at the regulatory low temperature during production, then you get fined, or worse. Regulations become outdated and arbitrary when the market and innovation moves on.

This happens, yeah, but not all the time. There are a lot of regulations which everybody follows and they work great.

Sometimes you do need to de-regulate things after the market has moved on - but I don't think that's an argument against regulation in the first place. For example - car emissions... maybe we won't need carbon emission regulations when all cars are electric, but we have to cross that bridge then.

In the meantime, I cannot imagine why a car company would produce a car with 'clean emissions' in the absence of a regulation saying they have to do so. A car with dirty emissions would be much cheaper and sell better. Your average consumer doesn't mind driving a car that creates a little bit of pollution if it saves them a few thousand bucks.


Quote
Green business is more profitable, fundamentally, regardless of what lazy older companies would tell you. All I'm saying is that gubmint regulation isn't the only answer. I'd much prefer Corporate Espeeuhnoj™, or market strong-arming, or even partial monopolization over endless Red Tape.

What makes you conclude green business is fundamentally more profitable? Filters, waste management, recycling.. these things are expensive!

Quote
I want to show people that Profit With Compassion™ is possible. I wanna change modern business standards by example, not by force. Instead of arguing about economic theory, why don't we throw some bar stools?

From where I'm sitting - green business is more expensive. People who produce things the "clean" way are operating at a disadvantage and will be beaten by competitors who are ridin' dirty. Even if all businesses agreed to "go green", any given business could get ahead of their competition if they defect from the plan.

I think that's the central thing that keeps the market from being green already. We consumers are not so into the green movement that we're willing to pay out out the ass just to be environmentally responsible.

PoFP

  • Word-Salad Enthusiast and Terrified Meat Sack
  • Outlandish
  • ***
  • Posts: 13068
    • View Profile
Re: Lazy Armchair Enthusiast Making Proposals For Change ITT
« Reply #24 on: May 02, 2016, 06:50:21 pm »
I think we can all agree that when our gubmint decides to take up management and regulation of something (Usually something lobbied for), it tends to be wasteful, inefficient, and over-bearing. Endless Red Tape that makes things hard for the right companies, as well as the wrong companies. Not only that, but when regulations and laws are defined, they tend to stick around, long after they are necessary. They could write a law requiring cooling of gorblefuts to certain temperatures during production. But after a few months of R&D, they are able to eliminate the cooling process with the advent of toodlesnoots. But the way the law works, if those gorblefuts aren't at the regulatory low temperature during production, then you get fined, or worse. Regulations become outdated and arbitrary when the market and innovation moves on.

This happens, yeah, but not all the time. There are a lot of regulations which everybody follows and they work great.

Sometimes you do need to de-regulate things after the market has moved on - but I don't think that's an argument against regulation in the first place. For example - car emissions... maybe we won't need carbon emission regulations when all cars are electric, but we have to cross that bridge then.

In the meantime, I cannot imagine why a car company would produce a car with 'clean emissions' in the absence of a regulation saying they have to do so. A car with dirty emissions would be much cheaper and sell better. Your average consumer doesn't mind driving a car that creates a little bit of pollution if it saves them a few thousand bucks.


Quote
Green business is more profitable, fundamentally, regardless of what lazy older companies would tell you. All I'm saying is that gubmint regulation isn't the only answer. I'd much prefer Corporate Espeeuhnoj™, or market strong-arming, or even partial monopolization over endless Red Tape.

What makes you conclude green business is fundamentally more profitable? Filters, waste management, recycling.. these things are expensive!

Quote
I want to show people that Profit With Compassion™ is possible. I wanna change modern business standards by example, not by force. Instead of arguing about economic theory, why don't we throw some bar stools?

From where I'm sitting - green business is more expensive. People who produce things the "clean" way are operating at a disadvantage and will be beaten by competitors who are ridin' dirty. Even if all businesses agreed to "go green", any given business could get ahead of their competition if they defect from the plan.

I think that's the central thing that keeps the market from being green already. We consumers are not so into the green movement that we're willing to pay out out the ass just to be environmentally responsible.

Oh, I agree. Some regulation is good. I was unclear in my wording, implying that all regulation is bad. But I think sometimes we jump to the conclusion that regulation is the only answer, when it isn't.

Also, I guess I generalized and said "Green" when what I specifically meant was "(Self)Sustainable energy," which happens to be Green. I mainly was talking about Sustainability in the OP as well. Simple switcheroo of terminology on my part. Mebad.

However, I would like to say one thing before we continue: While all things, Green or Sustainable are fundamentally cheaper, I would say that our current technology is not at the point at which it is cheaper, yet. R&D is still required to switch the system over, and my argument is based on the assumption that we have that technology. Which we soon will.

But onto Sustainable Energy Business: If a company can run on its own power systems that are self-sustained, then the up-front cost is the only thing that's high. After a year or two, it's all paid for itself.

In regards to systems dealing with Carbon emission reduction (Not what I was originally talking about in OP, but understandable topic transition because of my change in wording before), I bring up my point in the OP regarding invention and innovation. Assuming we had the technology to switch to alternatives for transportation that didn't produce carbon emissions, people would still hold back. Especially the big old corporations that grew up with carbon emissions. My argument is that once we've innovated and found a new way to run transportation and other things without much carbon emissions, then we need to avoid Red Tape enforcement for as long as possible. Or at least just stick with incentivizing Green business while we work towards market pressuring.

To clarify my obviously disjointed arguments, there are two parts to this ENVIRONMENTALISM plan:

1.) Innovate Green Technology
2.) Force companies to make changes while avoiding long-term regulation as much as possible.

I want to work on both aspects of this. Where do we get started?
Listen carefully. I don't have much time, and I only have 462 characters left. I'm a scientist from Area 52 (Area 51 was used to draw attention from Area 52, where the aliens were ACTUALLY stored) who was working on neural interfacing with networked devices. In an experiment gone wrong, I accidentally uploaded my mind to the internet. In the 2 seconds I had before my mind scrambled itself with the world's network traffic, I was able to store this snippet in this random internet signature. If you're reading this, let the world know tha

Cramulus

  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 130574
    • View Profile
    • Cramul.us
Re: Lazy Armchair Enthusiast Making Proposals For Change ITT
« Reply #25 on: May 02, 2016, 08:03:04 pm »
Without red tape, why would a company change to a more expensive production process?

How do you "force" a company to make a change without applying a regulation?

I don't think that consumer demand is a strong enough force to change things on its own.


The process of getting one kilogram of beef onto my plate produces as much carbon emission as driving 63 miles. Fruit and nuts have a much, much smaller carbon footprint. I know this, but I still prefer hamburgers and steak to all the salad in the world.

Freeky

  • Can't breathe anymore.
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 187801
  • wat
    • View Profile
Re: Lazy Armchair Enthusiast Making Proposals For Change ITT
« Reply #26 on: May 03, 2016, 07:45:12 am »
I read a thing about Interface, Inc. a while back.  Back in '96, they started moving away from petroleum based new products, and started going with recycling, making their carpet systems modular, and a whole lot of other shit I don't remember so well.  Their profits went through the roof, since they recycled all the carpeting they recovered when they installed by turning it all into some other product they sell, but I forget by how much.  The initial investment WAS a large one, though.
If someone does the “Fine, you’re right, I’m clearly a terrible person, I’m Satan, I’m the worst person alive, I should just die” thing in response to criticism of their harmful behavior, they are trying to manipulate people and flip the situation around so that they look like a victim.

As a neuroscientist I have to disagree with the perception that anyone is doing mathematical modeling of cognitive intelligence, yet; intelligence as an economist defines it, yes, but economists are worlds away from actual cognition.


Although it is outside the purview of this organization to offer personal advice, we can say -- without assuming any liability -- that previous experience indicates (and recent market studies corroborate) that given the present condition of the marketplace, continuing with your present course of action is likely to result in substantial in

Cain

  • Alea iacta est
  • Chekha
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 105000
    • View Profile
Re: Lazy Armchair Enthusiast Making Proposals For Change ITT
« Reply #27 on: May 03, 2016, 11:11:37 am »
I read a thing about Interface, Inc. a while back.  Back in '96, they started moving away from petroleum based new products, and started going with recycling, making their carpet systems modular, and a whole lot of other shit I don't remember so well.  Their profits went through the roof, since they recycled all the carpeting they recovered when they installed by turning it all into some other product they sell, but I forget by how much.  The initial investment WAS a large one, though.

And that can sometimes be a really hard sell to the board and investors who are often looking for quick returns.

I mean, the company I work for right now practically runs on "quarterly profits uber alles" model...and it is running them into the ground.  I've made several proposals which would involve significant up front costs but would pay for themselves over time in addition to other benefits...all of which have been turned down.

Freeky

  • Can't breathe anymore.
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 187801
  • wat
    • View Profile
Re: Lazy Armchair Enthusiast Making Proposals For Change ITT
« Reply #28 on: May 03, 2016, 04:17:23 pm »
Yeah, that's the problem with most people investing in a company, or the company itself.  It's a lot of scum that rule the world.
If someone does the “Fine, you’re right, I’m clearly a terrible person, I’m Satan, I’m the worst person alive, I should just die” thing in response to criticism of their harmful behavior, they are trying to manipulate people and flip the situation around so that they look like a victim.

As a neuroscientist I have to disagree with the perception that anyone is doing mathematical modeling of cognitive intelligence, yet; intelligence as an economist defines it, yes, but economists are worlds away from actual cognition.


Although it is outside the purview of this organization to offer personal advice, we can say -- without assuming any liability -- that previous experience indicates (and recent market studies corroborate) that given the present condition of the marketplace, continuing with your present course of action is likely to result in substantial in

The Good Reverend Roger

  • Horrible Bastard
  • One-Armed Jizz Moppers
  • Deserved It
  • **
  • Posts: 36736
    • View Profile
Re: Lazy Armchair Enthusiast Making Proposals For Change ITT
« Reply #29 on: May 03, 2016, 06:08:55 pm »
Yeah, that's the problem with most people investing in a company, or the company itself.  It's a lot of scum that rule the world.

Or just "we all want to see BIG returns on our 401K".
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

 "Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.