No, it is simply that people like yourself make ZERO effort to familiarize yourself with the reasons, facts, and ideas of those you disagree with.
.......................
Ironically, I disagree.
Actually, I make a great deal of effort to understand these "reasons, facts and ideas". This is why I'm debating. If I didn't care, I would spend my free time sitting in lounges sipping mojitos and only talking to people who agreed with me.
Chuck wrote:
At the same time, I'm very familiar with the works of people who are critical of technology, ranging from Wendell Berry to Illul to Mander to Zerzan and many others. Even if you set aside this considerable, solid body of criticism of technology, there are plenty of political reasons why climate change can't be solved by just new, or more, technology.
[...]
And now I'll quote myself:
"Of course, this is a political and cultural problem but also a technological one. "
The "also" means that I essentially agree with you, but work to avoid minimizing the design component of the problem.
Chuck wrote:
Your choice of words belies your acceptance of several paradigms about technology and politics. You argue that "we" need to "develop an energy production system". Who is we? It ain't me, because I don't have access to any lab. Are you using the nationalist "we", i.e. Americans? That buys into the paradigm that somehow "we" Americans can somehow solve this problem through technological means. I assume that your use of "we' does not mean indigenous people and poor people around the world who don't have access to cars, iPods or electricity.
[...]
Obviously "we" means we -- as in all of us in the technosphere. We have a responsibility to not only adjust our living habits but demand better (as in, less destructive and smarter) design. I'm not sure why you mention "indigenous people" in this context except, perhaps, to make me seem insensitive to people who don't have IPods. And if so, that's bad form old bean. I'm not such a horrible sort.
Chuck wrote:
Here is one change that we could make that doesn't involve new technology: change the way that we build in cities. Stop this artificial separation of residential housing from our workplaces. Want to stop the American dependence on cars? Change zoning practices. Discourage sprawl. Stop giving tax breaks and TIF money to developers. Build better public transportation. Rip up roads and plant gardens.
[...]
Yes. And what is this but a re-design of our infrastructure? Precisely what I'm after.
Whenever one uses the phrase "new technology" in regards to climate change many assume you're referring to multi-billion dollar projects to construct levitating, laser equipped, C02 battling robots or some such. A re-think of power distribution methods and materials, for example, might produce greater efficiencies and new technologies.
This is the sort of retro-fit I'm referring to.
Not so outlandish, is it?
.d.