To those who have been with us since our inception in 2009, as well as to those who are just joining us now for the first time, here’s a brief summary of what we at 2GreenEnergy are all about. We offer:
• A platform on which we connect cleantech entrepreneurs with sources of investment capital. (more…)
It’s hard to imagine any self-respecting woman voting for someone who is proud of the work he’s done in removing the right to an abortion.
Who doesn’t love Betty White? “If men could get pregnant, abortions would be available at Jiffy Lube.”
Here’s an NPR segment on the “sexiness” of climate science, in which the concepts of geoengineering and nuclear fusion are explored.
The point is that, while things like covering large land masses with solar and wind farms may be practical, they lack the sex appeal of things like fusion, which offers what is essentially an infinite supply of energy in perpetuity.
The problem, of course, is that, where solar and wind are here now, fusion is likely at least a decade, probably several, in the future.
Looking at geoengineering, I suppose there are people who find the subject to be sexy. Maybe these are BDSM enthusiasts; I just find the topic to be frightening. Making wholesale and irreversible changes in the composition of the Earth’s atmosphere, and dealing with an eternity of unintended consequences, doesn’t turn me on.
At left is a meme supporting the mode of thinking employed by conspiracy theorists, i.e., that they, unlike the rest of us, “have the cognitive capacity to think critically for themselves.”
In fact, the reason that reasonable people trust science is that we’re aware that we lack the time and resources to conduct this research ourselves: formulating hypotheses, experiment design and execution, analysis of results, drawing conclusions, publishing findings, and having them peer reviewed.
Shortly after I entered the field of climate science and interviewed Dr. V. Ramanathan at the Scripps Institute, one of the world’s leading experts on the subject, a well-meaning guy suggested that I come to my own independent conclusions on the subject. I respectfully pointed out that “Ram” (as he likes to be called, is one of tens of thousands of people who have made it their lifework to study this subject, each of which has a serious head start over me, including several decades of work, uncountable terabytes of data, and billions of dollars of surveillance equipment on and above the Earth.
I’m equally unqualified to “do my own research” in disease control, anthropology, molecular biology, and quantum physics.
If a few crackpots think this renders me intellectually deficient or gullible, I’ll have to learn to live with that.
The author of the meme at left makes a point we’ve covered here numerous times. There is no reason to think that God/Jesus favors, or should favor, the U.S. over the other countries on Earth.
Calling this “theological heresy,” on the other hand, seems unnecessarily nasty. Lots of Americans need this belief in their lives as if it’s oxygen. Let’s simply get used to living around these folks with tolerance and acceptance.
Yet, it’s interesting to think about what it would be like if there were less irrationality in the U.S. electorate. For instance, what level of support would there be for Donald Trump with his 91 felony counts if American voters were intelligent and reasonable people?
From the year I became an entrepreneur in 1984 until I moved into another line of work (environmental sustainability) in 2009, I’m guessing that my company (initially I myself) hired, say, 300 people. My policy was always: if two candidates for a position are roughly equally capable, and one is a white male and the other is a representative of a minority group, hire the latter over the former.
I have always wanted to do my part, all other things equal, to make our world a better, more just and inclusive place to live.
The notion that our civilization is falling apart because of anticapitalist wokeism is appealing to a relatively small group of hateful white supremacist idiots, but to a very few people beyond those limits.
In a recent post, Does Life Have Meaning? I wrote about the plethora of recent social media posts on the supposed meaninglessness of our lives.
In addition to the other points I made in the original post, this subject appears to be a “first world problem.” Think for a moment of those living in areas that are war-torn, impoverished, disease-ridden, or ruled by cruel tyrants. How many have the bandwidth to concern themselves with the meaning of life and to bemoan its monotony?
Yes, as Socrates said, “The unexamined life is not worth living,” but it’s possible that the over-examined life–as well as the unappreciated life–may be just as bad.
There seems to be a great number of social media posts recently on the subject of the supposed meaninglessness of our lives. Some people point to what they believe to be an absurd cycle of “eat, work, be entertained, sleep” that repeats itself endlessly until we become infirmed and ultimately die.
Personally, I see nothing absurd about any of this. Sure, our lives have no external meaning; it’s up to each of us to confer meaning to our existences by the choices we make. I used to say that I was “put on Earth” to solve corporate marketing challenges, the same way doctors consider that they’re here to cure disease and cops are here to fight crime.
I’m here for the same reason that any of us are: my parents had sex, and that’s essentially all that any of us can say, whether the pregnancy was planned or accidental. From there, it’s up to each one of us as individuals to find meaning as we make our way through the world.
There’s nothing about this that makes our lives absurd.
In this day in which so many Americans have completely given up on English grammar, it’s almost weird to see that the sign-maker here correctly used a semicolon to separate two independent clauses. Kudos.
Btw, the message is excellent as well.
There are vast differences between the Finnish and American cultures, principally that the Fins care deeply about the well-being of one another. This is not just talk; as shown at left, they spend their tax revenues in efforts to wipe out social problems.
Contrast that with the political ethos in the United States, where one side wants problems (like chaos at the southern border, lousy education, wage stagnation, etc.) to be as horrific as possible, enabling them to blame the other side, so as to ultimately win the upcoming elections. The lives of the people caught in these miserable conditions mean essentially nothing.
It’s the 77th birthday of actor and ardent Trump supporter James Woods (pictured here). Woods’ status as a celebrity, coupled with his belief that Trump is right for America doesn’t make him unique, but it certainly makes him rare.
Sure, he’s joined by personalities like Kid Rock, Ted Nugent, Jason Aldean, Kelsey Grammer, and Jon Voight. But, for each one of these, there are hundreds, maybe thousands, who find Trump and the con he’s inflicted on our nation to be utterly repulsive.
So let’s ask ourselves: Why are there so few celebrities at the “MAGA end” of the political spectrum? I would submit that the top entertainers:
• Got there by means of their sensitivity as people.
• Travel extensively, bringing them into contact with people from many different cultures.
• Need to get along well with others, which tends to weed out mean and hateful people.
Of course, there are demographics that are highly correlated to support for Trump, among them country music fans, gun dealers, evangelical Christians, tradespeople in rural parts of America, and the uber-rich.
