Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Dak]

Moving this here:

Short-lived yes, but they shouldn't have happened in the first place. It goes to show how inept he is--in my opinion, anyway.

Reasonable enough to move here or the Mort thread. I agree they shouldn't have happened in the first place but, for example, Bolton was a grasp to find a warm body to fill the spot. Bolton was passed over repeatedly. The bottom line is competent people consider it career suicide to take positions in his administration. Whether it's because of worrying about being a "yes person" or because of the idiot media or deep state it doesn't matter. It affects who is even available to appoint. Bolton, as an example, is/was too stupid to TURN DOWN the appointment.

Sorry, you gotta tell me what EROEI stands for...

As far as solar goes, you just said what it needs to be: solar on houses, on buildings! Universities are some of the most hypocritical institutions in this regard; they put panels on one or two buildings, all the while investing in pipelines out west.

I know people in Massachusetts who've installed panels on their houses; it's not an immediate return, but after a year they've said it more than pays off. Imagine if all buildings in an urban area installed them...

Obviously oil is the centerpiece of modern energy, but it's not going to last; in fact, at current rates of consumption, we might be out of oil by the end of the twenty-first century. There's only so much dead matter beneath our feet. The shift needs to be incentivized now--to solar, hydro, wind, nuclear, a combo.

Energy Return On Energy Invested. It takes a fuck ton of energy to create a solar panel, a battery, a wind turbine, to put them where they are, to maintain (mining, manufacturing, transportation, installing, maintenance), and that doesn't even get into disposal costs. Michael Moore of all people I believe just put out a doc on the boondoggle of green energy (haven't watched it). At the individual consumer level solar panels may make sense to some degree, depending on usage and location. All buildings wouldn't see a return if they are roof based because of height/usage/density unless we somehow maybe make the glass of skyscrapers return that solar energy, and even then it's a big maybe because of shade caused by seasons/latitude/density/etc.

There is a nonbio theory of oil production but that's way outside of my knowledge area so I'll just go along with the theory that oil is "dead dinosaurs etc". We might be out of oil by the end of the 21st Cent. There's no sign that anything other than Nuclear has the ability to carry us on/off TerraFirma. Even assuming a place for solar panels, those require Rare Earth Minerals and those are rare/finite as well, and solar panels eventually have to be replaced (current lifespan is 20-30 years).

I wouldn't immediately object to any of this, with the exception of "freeze immigration."

I would say, good luck pushing nuclear subsidies. And I'd add removing oil subsidies. Again, it's a cornerstone; but we need to start thinking long-term, and nuclear/solar/hydro/wind are all regenerative. Oil is finite, and the end is near.

Who is helped in the US by immigration?

I'm all about longterm thinking. Wind is a bad bet period. Solar is a maybe. Hydro is regenerative but has some enviro issues. Oil is likely finite.

None of this even gets into farming scale issues. I'm as worried about food as I am about energy.

 

[Einherjar86]

Energy Return On Energy Invested. It takes a fuck ton of energy to create a solar panel, a battery, a wind turbine, to put them where they are, to maintain (mining, manufacturing, transportation, installing, maintenance), and that doesn't even get into disposal costs. Michael Moore of all people I believe just put out a doc on the boondoggle of green energy (haven't watched it). At the individual consumer level solar panels may make sense to some degree, depending on usage and location. All buildings wouldn't see a return if they are roof based because of height/usage/density unless we somehow maybe make the glass of skyscrapers return that solar energy, and even then it's a big maybe because of shade caused by seasons/latitude/density/etc.

I think that over time we would see an overall a return on solar; but at the outset you're right, we wouldn't. The obstacle lies in overcoming that initial delay. You're also right that it's not the case that every building's panels will cover that building's energy requirements. But I wasn't implying that a building's panels would belong only to that building; it's just a matter of utilizing as much surface area as possible. The distribution of energy is another conversation.

But solar alone won't do, as we've discussed. It would have to be combined with other sources.

There is a nonbio theory of oil production but that's way outside of my knowledge area so I'll just go along with the theory that oil is "dead dinosaurs etc". We might be out of oil by the end of the 21st Cent. There's no sign that anything other than Nuclear has the ability to carry us on/off TerraFirma. Even assuming a place for solar panels, those require Rare Earth Minerals and those are rare/finite as well, and solar panels eventually have to be replaced (current lifespan is 20-30 years).

I may be wrong, but I think dinosaurs make up a small portion of petroleum; it mostly comes from dead plant matter. I'm not familiar with any nonbio theory of its origin--I assume it's not widely accepted?

 

[Dak]

I may be wrong, but I think dinosaurs make up a small portion of petroleum; it mostly comes from dead plant matter. I'm not familiar with any nonbio theory of its origin--I assume it's not widely accepted?

Yeah decayed organic matter in general is the accepted theory.

The "Abiogenic" theory isn't widely accepted but it's another theory out there (I do notice in the wiki almost all quotes/citation go to one guy):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin

 

[Dak]

Trade happened in pre-colonial Africa, just like slavery did; and slaves were traded in pre-colonial Africa, although not to the same degree they were between Africa and the Americas, or within the Americas for that matter. Capitalism was one of the major cultural developments in dismantling institutions like divine right, a general notion of which informed pre-colonial African societies (as far as we know); so accumulation wasn't done for accumulation's sake. Rather, accumulation reflected divine right. Royalty certainly accumulates in excess, but they don't weigh their accumulation against potentially greater value; they weigh it against their divinity. Under capitalism, by contrast, accumulation reflected success, and so more accumulation means more success. It has more to do with an alignment of values than it does with material needs.

By "economic infrastructure," I mean technologies by which excessive amounts of goods were able to be manufactured (namely, textile mills in England and cotton plantations in the American South, along with other plantations). The geopolitical structure of trade and the international manufacturing of goods created the demand for a workforce that far exceeded anything that was needed by any African kingdom. They engaged in trade and had markets, but nothing like the scale of production taking place between the Americas and Europe.

Again, I'm not trying to say there was no violence or oppression in pre-colonial Africa. I just think the South is the more likely cultural context that explains current socioeconomic trends.

Well under monarchies or comparable regimes certainly wealth flows mostly in the direction of the sovereign, but not exclusively. It's true that the scale was lower, but that had far less to do with people specifically and more to do with the multiplying of labor effort via technology. Slaves were only real multiplier previously, and eventually technology replaced them. The Intra-African and Arab-African slave trade was at least as large as the total TAST, and the US colonies comprised less than 10% of the TAST. While this is somewhat an aside to the overall original topic, I do think it's important to put the TAST in proper context both in relation to slave trade happening outside of the growing euro/anglo centric industrialization, and within it. Slavery was preindustrial technology, and industrial capitalism killed it as fast as it could innovate.

This is really interesting and I haven't read the Isenberg book, but it actually doesn't affect my point because African slaves wouldn't have come in contact with those isolated poorer white communities, outside of a few anomalies. They were purchased for work primarily on plantations, and poor whites couldn't afford more than one or two slaves, if any.

This would likely be a fair point until after the early 18th century. Poor whites would be unlikely to have a slave, but as they came in increasing contact with one another as the economy grew more interconnected, and then after emancipation, there would be more contact between blacks and poor whites. Interestingly enough Thomas Sowell has a book pushing the scotch/irish influence on post-slavery African American culture, but I've not read it, and I've read that it was criticized as being heavily based on one or a handful of sources. The interesting thing that frequently does not get discussed is the urban/rural divide and class. Poor whites and blacks in the US in urban areas have a lot in common, and poor whites and blacks in rural areas have even more in common. It's at the margins where the greater differences are in both directions.

 

[Einherjar86]

Well under monarchies or comparable regimes certainly wealth flows mostly in the direction of the sovereign, but not exclusively. It's true that the scale was lower, but that had far less to do with people specifically and more to do with the multiplying of labor effort via technology. Slaves were only real multiplier previously, and eventually technology replaced them. The Intra-African and Arab-African slave trade was at least as large as the total TAST, and the US colonies comprised less than 10% of the TAST. While this is somewhat an aside to the overall original topic, I do think it's important to put the TAST in proper context both in relation to slave trade happening outside of the growing euro/anglo centric industrialization, and within it. Slavery was preindustrial technology, and industrial capitalism killed it as fast as it could innovate.

I feel like it's giving industrial capitalism too much credit to say that it killed slavery... not sure that's a viable argument. If anything, industrial developments increased the demand for slave labor (as in the most famous case, the cotton gin).

I'm not sure why it matters that more slaves were sent to Central and South America. The tobacco plantations were as much a part of the colonial expansion of Euro-American capitalism as the cotton plantations were. I'd argue that the legacy of plantation capitalism in those regions had as detrimental of an effect on socioeconomic conditions for people of color today as it did in North America.

This would likely be a fair point until after the early 18th century. Poor whites would be unlikely to have a slave, but as they came in increasing contact with one another as the economy grew more interconnected, and then after emancipation, there would be more contact between blacks and poor whites. Interestingly enough Thomas Sowell has a book pushing the scotch/irish influence on post-slavery African American culture, but I've not read it, and I've read that it was criticized as being heavily based on one or a handful of sources. The interesting thing that frequently does not get discussed is the urban/rural divide and class. Poor whites and blacks in the US in urban areas have a lot in common, and poor whites and blacks in rural areas have even more in common. It's at the margins where the greater differences are in both directions.

After the early eighteenth century, we're in the thralls of Reconstruction and the country is witness to a whole new slew of violence and animosity.

I wouldn't disagree that poor whites and blacks have a lot in common--except for slavery, of course.

 

[Dak]

I feel like it's giving industrial capitalism too much credit to say that it killed slavery... not sure that's a viable argument. If anything, industrial developments increased the demand for slave labor (as in the most famous case, the cotton gin).

I'm not sure why it matters that more slaves were sent to Central and South America. The tobacco plantations were as much a part of the colonial expansion of Euro-American capitalism as the cotton plantations were. I'd argue that the legacy of plantation capitalism in those regions had as detrimental of an effect on socioeconomic conditions for people of color today as it did in North America.

Labor demand can be increased in the short run in a particular field, but over time the machine comes for everyone.

It matters that we have plenty of counter or comparable examples from other areas where many more slaves were taken, that have nothing to do with the cavaliers of the US south, and even less to do with the poor classes there.

After the early eighteenth century, we're in the thralls of Reconstruction and the country is witness to a whole new slew of violence and animosity.

I wouldn't disagree that poor whites and blacks have a lot in common--except for slavery, of course.

Implicit in this statement is a belief that "the country" is the north east coast, which itself is completely removed from experiences of violence and animosity. This ingrained perspective among those from the northeast coast is why people from the South have tended to dislike "Yankees".

 

[Einherjar86]

Labor demand can be increased in the short run in a particular field, but over time the machine comes for everyone.

The machine didn't come for everyone in U.S. slavery's case, though.

It matters that we have plenty of counter or comparable examples from other areas where many more slaves were taken, that have nothing to do with the cavaliers of the US south, and even less to do with the poor classes there.

Sorry, I still don't follow this reasoning.

Legacies of slavery have left socioeconomic wastelands all over Central and South America too. We just happened to be discussing the U.S. South. It's true that more slaves were sent to Central and South America, but 250k still went to North America; and when cotton production ramped up, nearly all of them were traded to Dixie.

Implicit in this statement is a belief that "the country" is the north east coast, which itself is completely removed from experiences of violence and animosity. This ingrained perspective among those from the northeast coast is why people from the South have tended to dislike "Yankees".

...if the implication includes the notion that a country should be "removed from experiences of violence and animosity," then I would agree; and I would say that I'd rather "the country" look like the Northeast than the Old South. To be honest, I don't see the point of this comment.

 

[Dak]

The machine didn't come for everyone in U.S. slavery's case, though.

Who picks cotton now?

Sorry, I still don't follow this reasoning.

Legacies of slavery have left socioeconomic wastelands all over Central and South America too. We just happened to be discussing the U.S. South. It's true that more slaves were sent to Central and South America, but 250k still went to North America; and when cotton production ramped up, nearly all of them were traded to Dixie.

African Americans do better economically and educationally than every other previous slave state afaik, despite average IQ levels being only slightly better, although the crime rates are far more closely linked.

...if the implication includes the notion that a country should be "removed from experiences of violence and animosity," then I would agree; and I would say that I'd rather "the country" look like the Northeast than the Old South. To be honest, I don't see the point of this comment.

You think the Northeast is removed from violence and animosity? Separately, looking at demographics, that's a pretty racist statement.

 

[Einherjar86]

Who picks cotton now?

...and?

African Americans do better economically and educationally than every other previous slave state afaik, despite average IQ levels being only slightly better, although the crime rates are far more closely linked.

Certainly not collectively, but I'm not sure what you mean by " every other previous slave state."

You think the Northeast is removed from violence and animosity? Separately, given demographics, that's a pretty racist statement.

That's what you said. I was quoting you.

 

[Dak]

...and?

Yes not everyone gets to see the the top forms of tech that replace, and the economic replacements are linear. I was trying to be as "on the nose" as possible.

Certainly not collectively, but I'm not sure what you mean by " every other previous slave state."

TAST specific sorry. Why not collectively relevant to that?

That's what you said. I was quoting you.

Yes, me referencing you. You've helped me out of at least one bubble, but I'm afraid I've been heretofore unable to help you out of this one.

 

[Einherjar86]

Yes not everyone gets to see the the top forms of tech that replace, and the economic replacements are linear. I was trying to be as "on the nose" as possible.

I just don't see why current developments are relevant. We're talking about the nineteenth century, at the latest.

TAST specific sorry. Why not collectively relevant to that?

I'm sorry, I don't follow. I meant that AfAm communities collectively don't do better, although some probably do. What other slave-state communities are we talking about?

Yes, me referencing you. You've helped me out of at least one bubble, but I'm afraid I've been heretofore unable to help you out of this one.

You think I see the NE as immune to violence, inequity, and hardship? I don't understand how you're interpreting my comments anymore. All I meant to say was that Reconstruction introduced new episodes of violence across the country. How did you interpret that as me thinking the NE was some utopian, nonviolent enclave?

 

[Dak]

I just don't see why current developments are relevant. We're talking about the nineteenth century, at the latest.

Yes. I'm pointing out the direction of currents, not where one might put their foot in the river at a given time. By the time the Civil War occurred, slavery was already on the way out because of rising industrial productivity affording the luxury of accepting moral arguments against slavery in much of the west.

I'm sorry, I don't follow. I meant that AfAm communities collectively don't do better, although some probably do. What other slave-state communities are we talking about?

In Caribbean states, Brazil.

You think I see the NE as immune to violence, inequity, and hardship? I don't understand how you're interpreting my comments anymore. All I meant to say was that Reconstruction introduced new episodes of violence across the country. How did you interpret that as me thinking the NE was some utopian, nonviolent enclave?

the country is witness
.....
I'd rather "the country" look like the Northeast than the Old South.

What I'm pointing out here is that there is an implicit, incredibly wasP-ish world view baked into these takes. New Englander Protestant Evangelical Universalism. The New York-Boston Corridor as center of the world, its elites stooping down to correct the behaviors and beliefs of the unwashed masses in other places and/or times.

 

[Einherjar86]

Yes. I'm pointing out the direction of currents, not where one might put their foot in the river at a given time. By the time the Civil War occurred, slavery was already on the way out because of rising industrial productivity affording the luxury of accepting moral arguments against slavery in much of the west.

Slavery was on the rise in the South, and the northern states opposed it because a slave-based economy threatened northern industrial manufacturing.

There's no doubt that industrial developments correlated with intellectual developments in a material way; but if anything, capitalism generated a need for more slaves as much as it generated an abolitionist mindset.

In Caribbean states, Brazil.

And there haven't been socioeconomic repercussions that still persist today in those regions?

What I'm pointing out here is that there is an implicit, incredibly wasP-ish world view baked into these takes. New Englander Protestant Evangelical Universalism. The New York-Boston Corridor as center of the world, its elites stooping down to correct the behaviors and beliefs of the unwashed masses in other places and/or times.

But baked into your comment was an implicit apology for the cultural absurdities of the Old South, and their legacy in current deep-South communities. All I was saying was that I'd rather the country look like the impression of NE that you accused me of having.

 

[Dak]

Slavery was on the rise in the South, and the northern states opposed it because a slave-based economy threatened northern industrial manufacturing.

There's no doubt that industrial developments correlated with intellectual developments in a material way; but if anything, capitalism generated a need for more slaves as much as it generated an abolitionist mindset.

I'd like to see some citations for this, particularly the first sentence; not only do I not believe this to be the case, it seems in contradiction to the claim that capitalism/industrialization fueled the need for more slaves.

And there haven't been socioeconomic repercussions that still persist today in those regions?

There have been, but it's hard to trace a direct line other than simply looking at demographics. Haiti and the Dominican Republic are an interesting juxtaposition.

But baked into your comment was an implicit apology for the cultural absurdities of the Old South, and their legacy in current deep-South communities. All I was saying was that I'd rather the country look like the impression of NE that you accused me of having.

The original impetus for the whole discussion was claiming hiphop, or something like that as short hand for contemporary urban African American culture, was rooted in "cultural absurdities of the Old South", which I disputed. Along the way you made references to "the country witnessing" Reconstruction era and after violence/animosity - which, given that the west was barely developed at the time, leaves the US Northeast as "the country" observing something happening elsewhere, ie, not the country. You have previously expressed irritation with MAGA types calling themselves "real Americans", but that is precisely the same sentiment at play here. All cultures have their own absurdities, and the Northeast isn't exempt (of course, I say "Northeast" but the NY-Boston corridor doesn't even have that much in common with the rest of the US Northeast). That you prefer that New Englander/WASPish culture to others isn't somehow obviously a morally superior preference.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'd like to see some citations for this, particularly the first sentence; not only do I not believe this to be the case, it seems in contradiction to the claim that capitalism/industrialization fueled the need for more slaves.

From Andrew Delbanco's The War Before the War:

By the 1850s, according to the historian Eric Foner, the economic value of "enslaved men, women, and children when considered as property exceeded the combined worth of all banks, factories, and railroads in the U.S. Under the regime of "King Cotton," the need for involuntary labor grew so rapidly that supply could barely keep up with demand.

The original impetus for the whole discussion was claiming hiphop, or something like that as short hand for contemporary urban African American culture, was rooted in "cultural absurdities of the Old South", which I disputed. Along the way you made references to "the country witnessing" Reconstruction era and after violence/animosity - which, given that the west was barely developed at the time, leaves the US Northeast as "the country" observing something happening elsewhere, ie, not the country. You have previously expressed irritation with MAGA types calling themselves "real Americans", but that is precisely the same sentiment at play here. All cultures have their own absurdities, and the Northeast isn't exempt (of course, I say "Northeast" but the NY-Boston corridor doesn't even have that much in common with the rest of the US Northeast). That you prefer that New Englander/WASPish culture to others isn't somehow obviously a morally superior preference.

I'd just direct you back to my final comment to CIG on this.

 

[Dak]

If you can provide an economist, if we are talking about economic aspects, rather than a quote referencing a super-biased historian (activist historians are even worse than polemical economists, which I agree with you are bad), that would certainly be better. I'm probably mostly offline for the next couple of weeks but I'll try to check in as I can, but I'm guessing based on the request to combine replies that probably won't be super necessary (I'm not sure what reply to CIG you're talking about tbh, I'm barely following the board).

 

[Einherjar86]

If you can provide an economist, if we are talking about economic aspects, rather than a quote referencing a super-biased historian (activist historians are even worse than polemical economists, which I agree with you are bad), that would certainly be better.

Now we've moved from citing sources to suspecting credentials of long-standing scholars in their field. I don't understand what makes Delblanco or Foner "super-biased" (I'm not sure whom you're talking about), or what would qualify them as less biased--other than citing figures you want to see, in which case it would seem you've already made up your mind and any amount of citing won't change it. These are established scholars in their fields. And I don't agree that historians are worse than polemical economists.

You can't ask for sources and then say "well, not those sources." I provided academic historiography, which is relevant in this case. If you want an economist's take, find one and provide it.

I'm probably mostly offline for the next couple of weeks but I'll try to check in as I can, but I'm guessing based on the request to combine replies that probably won't be super necessary (I'm not sure what reply to CIG you're talking about tbh, I'm barely following the board).

I clarified that I wasn't saying the plantation South is to blame, per se, for current African American cultural behavior; what I meant, rather, was that if we're saying either the American South is responsible, or cultural behaviors from pre-colonial Africa, then it's more likely that the South plays the greater role.

My original comment, way back at the beginning of all this, was that the South was a fucked up place (I'm paraphrasing). CIG then asked if Africa didn't have all the things I mentioned. I said it probably did, but I think it's more likely that AfAm experiences in the Americas play a greater role in shaping their situation today than their ancestors' experiences in Africa.

 

[Dak]

Now we've moved from citing sources to suspecting credentials of long-standing scholars in their field. I don't understand what makes Delblanco or Foner "super-biased" (I'm not sure whom you're talking about), or what would qualify them as less biased--other than citing figures you want to see, in which case it would seem you've already made up your mind and any amount of citing won't change it. These are established scholars in their fields. And I don't agree that historians are worse than polemical economists.

You can't ask for sources and then say "well, not those sources." I provided academic historiography, which is relevant in this case. If you want an economist's take, find one and provide it.

Activists aren't impartial, and historians aren't economists. Foner is a partial ideologue, and also speaking outside of his area. Duckworth and Dweck are established and popular psychologists and independent studies keep showing them to be hacks. Being "established" doesn't bestow a halo.

I clarified that I wasn't saying the plantation South is to blame, per se, for current African American cultural behavior; what I meant, rather, was that if we're saying either the American South is responsible, or cultural behaviors from pre-colonial Africa, then it's more likely that the South plays the greater role.

My original comment, way back at the beginning of all this, was that the South was a fucked up place (I'm paraphrasing). CIG then asked if Africa didn't have all the things I mentioned. I said it probably did, but I think it's more likely that AfAm experiences in the Americas play a greater role in shaping their situation today than their ancestors' experiences in Africa.

Fair enough on paragraph 1 as far as it goes in clarification but: This is really getting back to that nature/nurture divide. It's certainly not an either or, but the both/and is tilted to heritability, and that ship turns much slower than technology has been advancing in the last 200 years.

 

[Einherjar86]

Activists aren't impartial, and historians aren't economists. Foner is a partial ideologue, and also speaking outside of his area. Duckworth and Dweck are established and popular psychologists and independent studies keep showing them to be hacks. Being "established" doesn't bestow a halo.

I don't know Duckworth and Dweck, but based on their names, they sound like quacks.

Where are the independent studies challenging Delblanco and Foner? Look, if you don't buy the evidence, then fine; but then find an economist who disputes it. I know you're busy, I am too, so I'm not going to hunt that down. My stance: slavery was a huge market in 1850, and I don't agree with you that it was "on its way out."

 

[Dak]

I don't know Duckworth and Dweck, but based on their names, they sound like quacks.

Angela Duckworth is the hack behind the concept of "grit". Carol Dweck is the "genius" behind the "growth vs fixed mindset" grift. They are at Penn and Stanford, respectively. I believe that they believe they are doing important work, and many other people believe they are as well. But they aren't.

Where are the independent studies challenging Delblanco and Foner? Look, if you don't buy the evidence, then fine; but then find an economist who disputes it. I know you're busy, I am too, so I'm not going to hunt that down. My stance: slavery was a huge market in 1850, and I don't agree with you that it was "on its way out."

I don't care about Deblanco since this is simply him quoting Foner. Foner is just a quasi-marxist with a specific axe to grind. I could pull plenty of contra pieces from the Mises Institute, for instance, but you wouldn't accept those for likely a similar reason I won't accept Foner (I'm not even saying that their pieces would necessarily be accurate either). As per his wiki, he has specifically engaged in historical revisionism (which is what made him somebody), which is also something you have previously spoken against at times.

Yes, this is a very busy time probably for many people involved in academia in even tertiary modes. The last shave ship to the US came in 1860. Around half of the slaves brought to the US came before the Declaration of Independence. If slavery itself in the South wasn't yet on the downward trend in terms of cotton production, the demand for slave import certainly was, and the US South had a tiny fraction of the total slave population in the Americas.