How to fail in survival for very rational reasons

[Skybird]

There is neither a raised finger in the text I produced, nor is there talk or thinking of "evil", and the assumed bashing of the US or the West for ideologic reasons simply is Haplo's imagination. The argument is that we do not seal our doom because we are stupid or evil but that we have resonable, rational arguments for doing that. Which means that "ratio" and "reason" are no terms that are a desirable quality in themselves, but more of a tool that needs supplementing by other, additonal qualities that add orientation and intention to it. The time-scale also plays a role: we can have rational short-termed interest - that neverthelss are in threatening violation of not less (or even more) important long-termed interests.

If I really carry on with this text, i plan to spend some time looking at these things, and terms like egoism, altruism, agape, solidarity, rationality, reason, responsibility. The meaning of these terms is very context-sensitive and often not at all as obvious as popular - not to mention populist - language usage suggests.

As on population size, there is the environmental-physical-biological argument of that we are too many people, and the ethical demand that we just cannot commit genocide or sit still when millions get killed. Obviously we do the latter, but we take fire from moral arguments over that, and rightly so. What is there that needs further explanation? I often said that nature will take care of too huge population sizes the hard way (disasters, diseases, war), but from a human-moral perspective this correction towards more desirable population sizes cannot be enthusiastically welcomed by us rich "stinkers" living in wealth and comfort and security, I hope this is self-explanatory for everybody.

I also repeatedly, in different threads, gave an estimation that I consider the carrying capacity of this planet, to support human life on a general material basis not as excessive as today's Western standards, but also not on a basis so low that we would consider it to be poverty from a Western perspective, to be in the range of around 1 - 1.5 billion, if we should consume not more resources than what nature can replace within a timeframe relevant for man, and without polluting the environment so much that the total pollution level remains relatively stable instead of constantly growing. If you will a reduction of global population to that level, then you talk about the death of 6 billion people! Be careful to make such an argument thoughtlessly and without moral reflection. The biologic and physical reality is one thing, but we humans also have ethical concerns on our mind, and right so.

Interestingly, two days ago I linked to an interview with Dennis Meadows,
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...666175,00.html
who mentioned comparable estimations.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Is it possible to have 9 billion people on the planet?

Meadows: No. Even 7 billion is too much -- at least if they are all to have an appropriate standard of living. If you think it is acceptable to have a small elite that enjoys a decent lifestyle and a large majority that is excluded from that, then the Earth can probably sustain 5 to 6 billion people. If you want everyone to have the full potential of mobility, adequate food and self-development, then it is 1 or 2 billion.

Over the years I randomly stumbled over other estimations in that range as well. 1- 1.5 billion I see as a realistic and therefore: desirable mark, in case of doubt better the lower mark. But if somebody now says "Okay, let's start with letting them die!", then my only reply is "Fine. You first, please."

You see, this conflict between realistic need and moral demand is just part of our global dilemma, and as long as you don't get 6 billion volunteers to commit collective suicide, I do not see how to solve it.

the trick to solve it would have been: to let things never detoriate that much in the past. now it seems to be too late.

[CaptainHaplo]

By all means Skybird, continue. I have no doubt that you do not see the points raised as finger pointing. In speaking with you, I have seen that you try your best to be balanced, and I respect that. Your intent is not an attack, but the points of the original writers apparently differs, regardless of whether you see it.

We can all agree there is a severe overpopulation problem. I personally cannot say that 1.5 Billion is the "ideal maximum" for the ecological system we live in, but anyone willing to be intellectually honest can see we are in a non-substainable cycle as things stand due to overpopulation.

I am fairly confident that almost all the community here would agree that genocide to kill off the excess population is an answer that is beyond morally reprehensible, and thus not an option. And your right, the solution should have been implemented a long time ago, before the numbers became higher than the limitation.

But is it "too late"? I for one don't think so. While there are ways to lengthen our viability in this system, ultimately the numbers must reduce drastically, or the ecosystem humanity relies on must expand. The question is, as a race, do we move forward to the abyss and jump in, allowing the ecological collapse to trim us back as a species, or do we slow our approach to the edge, while building a bridge over that abyss, so that we may continue to move forward as a race?

Should we choose the first, humanity will survive, but in such a regressed state that it would be nearly unrecognizable to most of us. Should we choose the second, then we need to stop arguing amongst ourselves over issues that will have little true impact on the equation - such as global warming - and instead look at the true and hard "barriers" to the survival of our species.

When it comes to "using" the resources we have, I must point out that only when they are gone will most people move away from them - out of necessity. While an unfortunate facet of our nature, it does create opportunity - because as is often said, necessity is the mother of invention.

Do continue - because I think the discussions will be quite interesting. However, when I see a flaw, or a finger point, I will bring it to light. It is not to invalidate the point of view, but to demonstrate its lack of objectivity. I personally am familiar with the philosophy that "rational" thought trades short term gains for long term problems, as well as that it lacks a moral component. However, the only alternative to rational thought - is instict. The selfish instict of man - which often times overrides his rational thought - is what got us in this mess to begin with.

[NeonSamurai]

I am only going to comment on a few things that really stuck out for me in your argument Haplo.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

"By explaining the thinking process (or lack thereof) behind the deniers of climate change, and pointing out how they simply are too caught up in their own selfishness or fear of change, those of us who embrace the problems can feel self righteous and intellectually superior. This allows us to also set aside any argument or fact from those nay sayers, as their error in thinking already shows any point they make that we don't like are irrelevant."

Honestly I have yet to see any compelling evidence from the "deniers" side as you put it, that overwhelms all the evidence in support of man made climate change. Sure there are a few anomalies here and there, there always are. But the vast majority of evidence supports the theory of man made climate change. This is the key thing, as science goes by where the bulk of the evidence is, pseudo science however cherry picks a few arguments that appear to disprove the theory, and tries to present them as theory breakers. It doesn't work that way though, as science will forever be imperfect, and there will always be anomalies. Anomalies don't in of themselves disprove a theory, but they may point to some flaws which may later be overcome by improving the theory, or creating a new one which accounts for the anomalies along with everything before.

Another key thing is that most of the world's scientific community supports the theory. Yes there are scientists who do not agree, but again there always will be (there are scientists who disagree with the theory of gravity too). It is however usually telling when there is a majority consensus in the scientific community.

We could talk about the supposed falsification of data. But I have yet to see any evidence that it has happened to any great degree. I have seen one big smokescreen being thrown up by certain media people over it, consisting of misinterpretation, misquoting (out of context), etc. but I have yet to see anything that is truly damning. Perhaps though the investigation will turn up some misconduct, as I'm sure it happens. After all science is a human endeavor, and humans are flawed beings.

If you like though, we can start a new topic on the subject (I can hear the groans already ) and I will, time permitting, try to address any evidence you care to provide.

Not all human behavior is egotistical. On the contrary, humanity has shown itself to be capable of extremes - both in selfishness and in selflessness. While our nature may be one of selfishness, our intellect allows us to act beyond that nature. From the person who puts themselves at risk for another, to the sacrifice every parent makes for their child when they could easily just say no, humanity as a whole often acts unselfishly - whether those acts are rational or not. Its also telling that the premise attempts to equate individuality and self determination with being "egotistical" - since an individual would "assess if own standards shall bow to standards of others". If it were not for the "egotism" of those who, individually, made decisions to rise against the injustice of the standards of others - the entire world would be still be supportive and accepting of such acts like slavery, women as property, etc.

Well there are some major social psychology and sociology theories that totally disagree with your claim. They actually ascribe all social actions that appear to be altruistic on the surface, to actually be egotistically motivated. One theory is that we do altruistic things to feel good about ourselves, which implies that the motivation behind the altruistic action is in fact self serving (self gratification). This is just one of a handful of prominent theories which try to explain altruistic behavior. I would also add that altruistic behavior tends to be rather rare, and that 98% of the time we act in totally egocentric behavior.

Anyhow not gonna delve too far into the theories unless you really want to, as that is a rather expansive subject.

Any individual who does for themselves and is hard working has an advantage (strong) in any free market economy over someone who is lazy (weak).

If only that were true, then all hardworking people would be well off. Like my grandparents who worked very hard (you can't even imagine how hard they worked) every day of their lives, and spent a good part of it in abject poverty, often with barely enough food. Hard work does not make one successful, in spite of what the American dream claims. To be successful in a free market economy, you need to get other people to work hard for you, to make you money from their hard labor. To do that, you need capital, some luck, and often a cutthroat mentality. Then your grand kids will get lazy from inheriting your success, and waste it all being lazy and spoiled.

IMHO the American Dream is a total lie, one spawned to give the workforce hope, so they will keep working hard. The worker likes to dream that someday through hard work, he will move up and be the boss. But he never does move up, and all his hard work puts money into the boss's pocket, not his (sure he is payed, but he never gains, just maintains). Its a great idea though, make your workers think they can become the boss, and they will keep working hard and be less likely to rebel, believing that some day they will move up. The occasional story of success (often due to a lot of luck, or some very smart people) bolsters the fallacy that everyone can be successful if they just work hard. This is just one reason why I am not a big fan of the free market system.

[CaptainHaplo]

Neon,

On global warming, it is often said that there is a "consensus" on the issue. However, there are too many scientists that disagree for a "general agreement or concord; harmony" to be said to exist. In fact - here is the proof of it:

Less than half of all published scientists support global warming theory.
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8641

As for general data that points to errors in either the global warming theory itself - or what it means to the earth's ecology - here are some tidbits:

Greenland Ice Find Debunks Al Gore’s Global Warming Theories
http://newsbusters.org/node/13948

Global warming? It's natural, say experts
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-481613/Global-warming-Its-natural-say-experts.html

Proliferation of Climate Scepticism in Europe
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=110107A

The reality is - it is still a huge question. The recent emails that have been exposed simply bring that question into focus even more. When you have documented evidence that scientists willfully hid and destroyed original data, refused to allow independant review of their processes and computer models, and intentionally blacklisted other scientists who failed to uphold their desired view, I would say what they have done is not just "misconduct", but points to the fact that the real data didn't point to what they claim. We will see.

On the theory of altruism is truly self-centered - I am vaguely familiar with it. The reality is that you can take any action that anyone does, and find some way to claim it is selfish. A parent does for their child, only because they want that child to love them. A person compliments a co-worker on their appearance, they are either "kissing a$$" or - if the person is the opposite sex, trying to get laid. Giving to charity makes them feel better about themselves.... etc etc. In many ways, its rather a "freudian" way of thinking, though he was preoccupied with sexuality and perversion, this is tied to selfcenteredness under every circumstance. Sorry, but those who subscribe to the theory are often doing what is called "projecting" - using their own personal views of how they see themselves (often without realizing it) onto every other person. There are plenty of mental health professionals that do not ascribe to the same theory.

Now - the free market and hard work issue. The American Dream is real my friend. Too many people live it and create it every day. Answer me this - how many people become successful by being lazy in a free market society? No - hard work does not guarantee success, and yes, it takes more than just that to succeed. However, I said a hard worker has an ADVANTAGE over a lazy person - I didn't say a hard worker had a guarantee of success. Yes, some people work hard and never make it. This is undeniable. But the free market gives no guarantees to rich or poor. It does however, offer the chance to rise above - should you accept the challenge. In a socialistic economy, that chance does not exist. Thus, which is better in that one aspect?

[Skybird]

You are too uncritical, Haplo.

"Front groups"
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Front_groups

"Third party technique"
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...arty_technique

Copying tactics from the tobacco companies' fight
http://www.citact.org/newsite/module...rticle&sid=387

Beware Sceptics bringing "balance" to climate debate
http://www.spinwatch.org/blogs-mainm...climate-debate

Bribing scientists
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen....climatechange

Rupert Murdoch's and FOX News' role
http://www.desmogblog.com/murdochs-g...misinformation

Exxon spending millions to cast doubt
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...ng-427404.html

-------------

Example: Exxon's investement into lobbying and propagandistic scepticism (the estimations on money they spent are very conservative, btw, i remember to have seen values up to ten times as high)

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/listorganizations.php

http://www.scribd.com/doc/7334/Exxon...2004-Key-Facts

http://www.exxposeexxon.com/ExxonMobil_politics.html

--------------

A reminder of politics prohibiting scientists' free speech/publishing:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=1419490n

Exxon and politics tried to manipulate the IPCC's work from the beginning on and even wanted key personnel being not sceptical enough being replaced:
http://www.nrdc.org/media/docs/020403.pdf

----------

Flurry of lobbying cash obscures US climate debate
http://www.mb.com.ph/node/227667/flurry-lobbying-ca

Exxon outspending Greens on lobbying
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aPuYDoceYMe0


A place worth to be monitored:
http://www.ucsusa.org/index.html




All the industry's lobbying efforts together rank in the billions - per year. Whole "think" tanks get founded by this money, whole media compaigns get run, whole parts of parties and goivernments get bought, whole structures inside the state's administration and offices get captured with personnel. These claimed "think" tanks are not think tanks at all, but propaganda brigades who use for the most just one most destructive tactic: to discredit science, and raising doubt, no matter where, no matter how, not even the most hilarious claim is too absurd as if it wouldn't be used in that battle, with pseudo-science getting wrapped into the claim to be real science and "balance" science" and representing consensus amongst anonymous huge crowds of true scientists.

In boxing, they have a name for boxers provoking, disturbing and destroying like this: they are called stinkers. what they lack in skill themselves, they try to compensate by trying to provoke the other in an attempt to nevertheless look good themselves.

[NeonSamurai]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Neon,

On global warming, it is often said that there is a "consensus" on the issue. However, there are too many scientists that disagree for a "general agreement or concord; harmony" to be said to exist. In fact - here is the proof of it:

Less than half of all published scientists support global warming theory.
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8641

Funny as I found several articles on the scientific databases which disagree with that article. Then there is the problem that no single scientific body of national or international standing has come out in dissent of GW. Unfortunately as is often the case, I can't offer them as they are in pay to view databases, in which most academic work is found.

As for general data that points to errors in either the global warming theory itself - or what it means to the earth's ecology - here are some tidbits:

Greenland Ice Find Debunks Al Gore’s Global Warming Theories
http://newsbusters.org/node/13948

This article is full of holes, it's heavily biased, and its working from the assumption of natural climate shifts only (global warming is more then just that), also the average global temperature increase claimed of 9 degrees F in the article flies in the face of most articles I have read which calculates the average temperature at about 5.5 degrees F. That makes me suspicious of the entire article.

Global warming? It's natural, say experts
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-481613/Global-warming-Its-natural-say-experts.html

Ya that is already known to the scientific community that the earth goes through warming and cooling cycles and taken into account in the theories and calculations. The problem is what is happening now is going far beyond the normal natural cycles, according to virtually all the data we have.

Proliferation of Climate Scepticism in Europe
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=110107A

This article doesn't say a whole lot to me. First off the title is a dramatization, and isn't supported, as most of the scientific community according to the studies I have read supports the theories. Sure there are some dissenters, there always will be. Second I would be very interested in knowing who is funding them.

The reality is - it is still a huge question. The recent emails that have been exposed simply bring that question into focus even more. When you have documented evidence that scientists willfully hid and destroyed original data, refused to allow independant review of their processes and computer models, and intentionally blacklisted other scientists who failed to uphold their desired view, I would say what they have done is not just "misconduct", but points to the fact that the real data didn't point to what they claim. We will see.

I have yet to see any actual evidence of wrong doing, just a lot of unsubstantiated claims coming from certain groups. If you have any actual evidence, please show me it as I would love to see it. I could also point to the huge swarms of false data and other crap coming from the other camp.

Oh and yes some scientific groups and individuals have been blacklisted. Mostly for committing demonstrable scientific fraud. SB covered that sufficiently though.

On the theory of altruism is truly self-centered - I am vaguely familiar with it. The reality is that you can take any action that anyone does, and find some way to claim it is selfish. A parent does for their child, only because they want that child to love them. A person compliments a co-worker on their appearance, they are either "kissing a$$" or - if the person is the opposite sex, trying to get laid. Giving to charity makes them feel better about themselves.... etc etc.

Its actually found in several different theories, in 2 fields of human study. Parents love their children partly as they are genetically programed to, and the behavior is reinforced by hormonal responses. They also represent a continuation of themselves. Plus there is the socially conditioned and motivated reward of doing good by your kids, which when parents do as they have been socially conditioned to do, they naturally feel good about themselves (endorphins release).

A lot of this stuff is social conditioning. We are conditioned by our society to behave in certain ways, and when we do our brain reward ourselves (endorphins again). This is what can make such behavior egocentric, as are we acting for truly altruistic reasons, or are we really doing it for the reward we get for following social behavior.

In many ways, its rather a "freudian" way of thinking, though he was preoccupied with sexuality and perversion, this is tied to selfcenteredness under every circumstance. Sorry, but those who subscribe to the theory are often doing what is called "projecting" - using their own personal views of how they see themselves (often without realizing it) onto every other person. There are plenty of mental health professionals that do not ascribe to the same theory.

Not really. Freud did certainly have an interest in human sexuality, which is unsurprising given that he came from one of the most sexually repressed societies in history (late Victorian, early Edwardian). Btw the concept of projection came from Freud himself . This is actually based on much more modern research, including research using fMRI imaging of the brain showing the activated centers of the brain when doing certain things.

Now - the free market and hard work issue. The American Dream is real my friend. Too many people live it and create it every day. Answer me this - how many people become successful by being lazy in a free market society? No - hard work does not guarantee success, and yes, it takes more than just that to succeed. However, I said a hard worker has an ADVANTAGE over a lazy person - I didn't say a hard worker had a guarantee of success. Yes, some people work hard and never make it. This is undeniable. But the free market gives no guarantees to rich or poor. It does however, offer the chance to rise above - should you accept the challenge. In a socialistic economy, that chance does not exist. Thus, which is better in that one aspect?

Hard work alone never guarantees success. Also hardly anyone achieves the American Dream, to become independently wealthy and successful. The vast majority slog it out day to day, never getting ahead. There is very little chance to get ahead to most people, unless they are dumb lucky, or are much smarter then average. I would also say that the smart lazy people have an advantage over the hard worker, they find the ways of getting others to do for them. There are also several lazy people who let their money work for them. To succeed in a free market system, you need to have your money work for you, not work for your money. But you need money in the first place to do that, or a hell of a lot of luck. Frankly I think intelligence in our society is a far more useful trait to have then hard work, you much more likely to go farther having that over the other, especially if you mix ruthlessness in.

[CaptainHaplo]

No Skybird - it is you who are to "uncritical".

Take a look at your own data. For example:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/7334/Exxon...2004-Key-Facts

Did you happen to do more than glance at it? It lists CORE - or the Congress for Racial Equality - as being a major fundee of environmental science! Go look at what CORE really is:
http://www.core-online.org/Features/what-is-core.htm
(also notice your link couldn't attibute any environmental statement to them)

Your link also makes a point to claim Exxon has spent - in 7 years - nearly $16 Million in "research" that is purposed to debunk climate change. Ok - lets say that they actually have -though the site's accuracy is already in question. Lets give them the benefit of a doubt. How much has been spent trying to PROVE climate change in that same time?

http://truedsicernment.com/2009/01/2...ilout-as-well/
The 2009 US Congress is spending $400 Million alone on it - in ONE year!

http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/...rnia_to_f.html
The state of California is putting a total of $600 Million into it.

Lets not forget so called "Foundations" - like this one offering $100 Million:
http://www.todayscampus.com/articles/load.aspx?art=207

Of course - those "scientists" who are debunking global warming are doing it just for the money - selling their principles for dollars right? So what do you think Phil Jones - the head of CRU was doing all that time he was pushing this junk science on us? Could it have been collecting grant money from taxpayers around the world? Surely not, right? Think again!

'Climategate' professor Phil Jones awarded £13 million in research grants
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/cop...ch-grants.html

The reality is - follow the money. Sure companies are spending money on this. Its their livelihood. But the money they are spending pales in comparision to that which is spent continuing to "research" and force feed this bullocks to people. And the scientists pushing global warming - as the CRU emails demonstrate - have been selling their integrity and the integrity of the science behind this issue - for the "research" money it provides.

But too many people want to dismiss that as merely "inappropriate behavior" by a few people. They don't want to discuss the FACTS that data was distorted - and that the data is the same data that the UN has been using for how long to tell us this is real. Don't look at the man behind the curtain, just pay attention to me - I'm the wizard of oz! Even politicians like Pelosi are doing the same thing - obscure the problem and hide the real data and facts - by sending people off on other things - like "these hackers broke the law - we must seek justice!". Well what about the mailicious embezzelment of taxpayers money all in the name of "research" that produces an outcome that cannot be verified by independant sources????

Two of your links do exactly what I claimed your initial post does. It cast aspersions NOT on the data people provide, but instead tries to dismiss the people out of hand so that their data would not be taken into account. In fact - the one about "bribing scientists" is a grossly exaggerated and sensationalized headline. Read the story and you will see that. The one of Murdoch and Fox news - well - its a given that Fox news doesn't play by the same rules as all the other major media outlets, because it doesnt swallow the liberal agenda - so once again - it must be marginalized! Oh, but one news outlet is so damning - while how many others push this crap without ever asking hard questions of the salespeople?

Oh my - Exxon spent more on lobbying than clean energy did.... Gee, this is supposed to be a suprise? Exxon is alot bigger, therefore has more funds to spend than clean energy firms. What do you want, a "level playing field"? Why not just governmentally mandate that clean energy has to have a level playing field everywhere - including in the market!?!?

Personally, I think all lobbying should be done away with. But don't act like its some crime against humanity that a company with more money spends more. If you want to talk about crimes against humanity, we can discuss all that research money that scientists have taken and then come back for more - the whole time going "there is a crisis, we need more money - but no you can't see the data, believe us, we are scientists."

I can't speak for everyone, but human nature is admittedly greedy in general. Thus, if you want to get to the truth of the matter - follow the money. And Skybird, the majority of that money - has been flowing to the pro-Climate Change group for decades - and they have no intention of giving it up, regardless of whatever the truth may be.

[Skybird]

You imply that lobbying for economic interests and scientific research for the sake of knowledge per se are the same, and that thus publishing scientific data compares to economic lobbyism. what you ignore is the difference between science and pseudo-science (including the intention to replace the need to found one'S own argument with just discrediting the other). That reminds me a bit of what in German is called "Konfundierungseffekte" (although it is not really the same), you mistake the different nature of two qualities and try to compare them by using just one scale for both although you would need two.

I must say that I observe this habit of yours quite often, in your first reply in this thread and to NeonSamurai as well as in you thread on evolution and creationism - ignoring that the one is a scientific theory, the other is a belief. So when willing to compare the two or discuss their different content, one would imply that they could be compared on the basis of both being scientific theory. and I thought from the beginning on that this legitimation and raise in reputation for creationism was what you were after.

By doing so, it can be explained why you also refer to - or imply that it is desirable to have - a "balance" between lobbying for climate scepticism over mostly pseudo-scientific claims made for economical profit reasons, and lobbying for scientific data produced by regular scientific work that - ideally - is not financed by the economy, but serves the purpose of knoweldge as a non-profitable self-interest. You - intentionally or unknowingly - ignore these differences and declare both things to be the same.

I necessarily must reject that.

Please note that I am quite aware of the academic business not being perfect in reality, and that all the human welaknesses and the individual interst for securing one's job and winning reputation by publishing, that ll these things crankle against each other. Also, many parts of the educational sector get fiannced and supported - and both means: influence - by private business and economic interests. that is the reason why I fully agree with the minoirty in Germany to have yearly fees for university edcuation: to allow the universities becoming more independent from lobbyistic funding again. that will exlcude some students of poor families from access to education, yes, and I do not ignore that. but I think that is the lesser evil, the first being more important to be adressed. I also am quite aware that the industry already has hijeacked the "green revolution" as well (energy saving bulbs), and that the pro climate-chnage-camp also can fall for unreflected lobbyism. the question however is if regular science if as effected by that as is economically lobbied pseudo-science by "sceptical" parties and the fossile-fuel-basing insdustries. And there I see a clear difference.

You also post with great confidence, and in your original reference to the text claimed with greatest, almost provocative naturalness many flaws to which you claimed - again with greatest naturalness - to have the needed corrections. But to be honest, I fail very often to see the relevance and consistency between the object of your criticism and the way you adress that object, that'S why I found it both so very confused (you) and confusing (me) that I did not try a reply, since the wealth of comment from you also would make it extremely time-consumming. Since you post with that great coinfidence, i must be allowed to say that I cannot see your reasons for your confidence to be so obvious as you seem to think they are.

what I try to do is to put the objects of my interest in this thread - what I write about in that text - onto a basis that on the one hand is generalised enough that it has a high validity (relevance), on the other hand does not let down reliability (precision, correctness). That is always a balance you are looking for, no matter whether writing a book, or doing an experimental design (that's where the so-called reliability-validity-dilemma orignally comes from), or trying to define how much illustrating detail one needs to include without destracting from the main object. The 3 parts of the "preambel" for example originally had several additional remarks, which made it quite complex and repetitive, hiding the relevance for what I try to do here. I deleted much of it, and found that what was left was more generalised in formulation, but still by that: was releavnt in a far-reaching meaning. I planned from the beginning on to come back to these points again, if I ever manage to get it done in full planned length. Some of your criticism however seem to indicate that you do not see that relevance, mixed with some additionally erratic understandings of terms and non-relevant references that you meant to illustrate what you was after. Actually I did not find it illustrating, but spend more time with trying to figure out why the heck you were coming up with this given example now. Why needing to refer to abortion when the point is about envrionment, climate chnage and the way that threatens future generations health and survival, is especially illustratve I have with your way of arguing. You may see it as valid, to me it is: distracting.

I must say that I find it difficult and very ressources-consuming to adress your replies on a point-by-point basis, like I often use to do, usually, because our communicating modes at least regarding the intention in this thread seem to be extremely different, and I believe I also identified several habitual thinking errors of yours, like the things i tried to describe in this post, and that makes it impossible to discuss with you as long as these do not get fixed, since they are so basic. For example not making a difference between funding for science, and economic lobbyism.