I didn't see my response as blaming anyone, — T Clark

I found these comments to sound in blame:

There aren't many who "didn't even avail themselves. — T Clark

Nobody really gets off the hook. — T Clark

Maybe I shouldn't have said "blame."

Dangerous chemicals were placed in the stream of commerce from the beginning of humanity. People have been shitting in the river upstream from their neighbors since Og met Eep. It took thousands of years for restrictions to even try to catch up. The world used to be big enough you could dump stuff and nobody would notice. That doesn't work any more. It has also turned out that the hidden out of the way places we've been dumping stuff - wetlands, rivers, oceans - are just about the worst places to dump stuff. — T Clark

Again, while I could dissect that (rocket scientists are still polluting outer-space, because they think it's too big?), it is basically a recitation of the way things are. Which I can stipulate to. I wasn't trying to get at the way things are in my OP. I'm trying to get people to talk about where we go from here and what we should know before making decisions.

The answer here is the same as for all other cases where there is conflict between what's right for people and what's right for them what's got. Sometimes the good guys win. Sometimes they lose. Usually a little bit of both. — T Clark

Okay, so we shrug. Meh. Nothing to see here folks, move on.

The cleanup laws; federal, state, local; are theoretically set up to make the one that benefitted from contaminating the world pay. As always, the process machinery is creaky and sometimes breaks down. — T Clark

And, we should . . . ?

Because that's the way everything works. Laws and regulations are not a good substitute for good intentions, good neighbors, and stewardship of our world. This is especially true when the goals you are working for are controversial and cost money. — T Clark

Bonding? Insuring? Publication in more than the Federal Register and the CFRs? Or just keep the foot on the gas and let's roll!

I'm sorry if I took your discussion somewhere different from what you intended. — T Clark

I honestly don't think it's your fault. As I've confessed, my OP was really lacking; especially the dumb title. The only real bite I got was:

Should any accommodation be made for those who decline to avail themselves of X in defense of needs?
— James Riley
Yes. — Caldwell

I would have liked to have heard more on what the yes would entail, but I'd be happy to put a bullet in this thread. :lol:

There aren't many who "didn't even avail themselves." Almost everything we use in our technological society generates waste, some more toxic than others. Our food is grown with chemicals. We drive our cars using gasoline. Electronic stuff uses all sorts of toxic materials. Nobody really gets off the hook. I grew up in a Dupont family - Better things for better living through chemistry. — T Clark

I've often made the argument against NOS and libertarians that there is no hypocrisy in doing X if to not do X actually works at cross-purposes to the goal (if I save a gallon of gas, I increase supply, reducing price, stimulating demand, encouraging a person with a low mileage vehicle to pollute my air while I walk). I make this argument when they say Gretta Thunberg or Al Gore are hypocrites for flying instead of swimming across the ocean to fight for their cause. The guy who wants to kill Saddam Hussein is not a hypocrite for backing a U.S. war instead of flying over there and trying to hunt Saddam down by himself. Some things need collective action to do. In other words, I find the universal blame argument to be BS. It's not like anyone has a choice.

We have been deprived of choice. But my question is, by who? By society, thinking consciously, after an honest and open discussion of the costs and benefits? Or by Dupont and the private-for-profit corporations buying legislatures, and everyone looking the other way while dangerous chemicals are placed into the stream of commerce?

For Dupont to say we all benefit, and look at all the employment, and taxes paid, good things coming to life, etc. presupposes a conscious decision; not by Dupont, but by society. Did the markets get in on the decision making? Did Dupont insure? Or did they get statutory limits on liability? Did they bond? Or did they shrug it off on the purchaser? Did they accept returns, like a can or a bottle? Or did they obstruct incentive to return?

I'm not denying the way things are. I am asking if they are the way they are after a knowing, informed, arm's length, conscious decision by the parties (i.e. the public), or did they become the way they are through private-for-profit cost externalization? Think big tobacco.

(That brings to mind alcohol: That is one case where it seems to me the public actually hashed it all out and decided honestly to bear the costs in return for the benefits. Was that done for anything else?)

I guess I was bothered by how simplistic you had made it by ignoring our society as it now exists. — T Clark

I did not ignore how our society exist. Quite the contrary. My purposefully oblique OP (notwithstanding the unfortunate title) was specifically designed to get a discussion going on whether our society should exist as it does, did it come about intentionally, and who's intention was it? The public's? Or some other entity? Who should bear costs? Should there be any accommodation for those who don't participate? Or don't want to participate? I tried to make that clear with the distinction between needs and wants, and the threat of wants to needs. See also the concluding question.

The hazardous waste management system was exactly set up to deal with "who bears, who should bear, who (if anyone) should not bear." You can say it doesn't do it very well and I won't disagree. The idea of including all the costs, even indirect ones, into the cost of products is controversial. People don't like it when you make it harder to make money. — T Clark

I know the SARA, RCRA, etc. I know what is. My question is about whether the public knew, and if an opportunity was offered to not pay the cost. The fact that people don't like it when you make it harder to make money is a comment that actually gets to my OP. Thanks. So, did those people get their way through free market forces? After the public was honestly and openly informed? Or are our politicians part of the market, to be bought? Should there be compensation for bearing costs? Are taxes paid to help pick up the mess? Is Superfund part of that? Is that adequate for the kid with growths on his brain?

Again, I guess I think it already does do that; perhaps badly, unfairly, even corruptly; with our environmental laws. You have had the misfortune to get involved in a discussion of environmental issues with a retired environmental engineer who hasn't had a chance to be a smarty-pants for a while. — T Clark

To the extent it does do it badly, unfairly, or even corruptly, why is that? Can it be done better? Should it be done better? You've had the misfortune to get involved in a discussion of environment issues with a former environmental lawyer who starved when he wore a white hat and made a killing wearing a black hat for one of (actually the) largest ag corporations in the U.S.

But I really didn't want to get into any of those specifics. Going back to my OP, I'm wondering if anyone here has any ideas, not about where we are (which we all know) but how we got here and where we might go from here. Not on an individual statutory basis, but generally, from a societal, social, government angle. Specifically, how should our needs stack up to our wants? Is it capitalism's goal to take a need, which is free and abundant, and reduce it to a point where it can be sold for profit? (water, air, space) All by catering to wants? And without informed consent of the public?

Anyway, I missed the target.

:100:

If AOC were a man, she would not get nearly as much crap. I'm pretty confident about that. — Manuel

That's the other thing about politics: She's forced to stand on her own. And I guess that is as it should be. And I think she can do it. She's tough. But in the old school, a real man would not let another man treat her the way she's been treated. Yeah, if a woman kicks you in the balls for no reason, I see no problem with punching her in the face. But I don't see AOC kicking anyone, being disrespectful or otherwise "asking for it." She's been acting like a lady, and respectful, just speaking some truth: if that hurts some Republican or challenges his masculinity, tough. He's the pussy. Let Trump grab him.

Anyway, I know full well I sound like a sexist POS but that's the way I roll. I don't want to see her end up like Hillary or Nancy or Mitch McConnel. They got tough, which is not bad, but they also got conniving. Sad, really.

When I look back at what I just said, I realize how naïve and stupid I sound. It is, after all, politics. I guess that's why I stay out the kitchen: I can't handle the heat. :lol: Good luck to her (and Bernie).

The party that generates the waste is responsible for managing it. The product manufactured is not waste. A material doesn't become waste until it is thrown away. That seems like a reasonable way to handle it. — T Clark

I have to be careful here, because that is exactly how I feel about guns. So yes, maybe the manufacturer is not liable for how his product is used. But, that end user needs to burn to the ground if he externalizes the costs by spreading the waste around to those who did not agree to carry those costs; especially those who didn't even avail themselves of the user's product from which the byproduct resulted. Putting a warning in the fine print of a food label has all the morality of a "By using this software you agree to get fucked without Astroglide" clause in an online access click.

Anyway, I now recognize I failed in my OP. I think back to "what was I thinking" when I wrote "Is dilution the solution to pollution?" I must have been trying to be cute or something. I really didn't want to discuss RCRA or specifics. I was trying to get at the idea of society, needs, wants, cost externalization, who bears, who should bear, who (if anyone) should not bear? Should loss be compensated? Should compensation, if any, be off set by some perceived benefit? Is this all worked out with, or lost in election of representatives to make the calls? I think of our resident libertarians. Is society making conscious decisions regarding cost-effectiveness? Is society just looking the other way in open conspiracy? If society is spreading a burden, shouldn't it at least say "Okay, we know this is bad, but we are going to do it anyway because we think the benefits outweigh the costs." Is it just a matter of "There are going to be winners and losers" without actually addressing the losers?

Are we all just a bunch of children let loose in a mall, without supervision? Or are we adults? Or is there no such think as "adult."

Anyway, I accept full responsibility for the failed articulation of the OP. Maybe I'll try again some other day.

I like AOC here — Manuel

I do too. I just hope the years in contact with politicians doesn't turn her into one. Bernie seems to have been *relatively* human, so it can be done. But politics has a way of sullying the best of people. She seems so young, and clean, and smart. I'd hate to see her turn into a conniving game player. You want to know who else is sharp as a freaking razor (and without notes or teleprompters)? Pete Buttigieg.

Dan Crenshaw? He has criticized Trump's actions on Jan 6th and basically for the ex-soldier Trump "isn't the Devil, but isn't Jesus either". I think that is actually a very representative attitude of how Republicans really think of Trump, when you toned down the hype. — ssu

I was thinking more of a situation where they are both on stage and Crenshaw (or anyone, really) faces Trump, looks him in the eye and says "You are a dishonorable coward and a liar. And I my honor won't let me abide your leadership. I encourage all good conservative men and women to find a better human being to represent them and their principles." Then stand there, silently, facing him, waiting, smiling.

Then I woke up.

And I won't lie to you and say I did not thoroughly enjoy Trump destroying the other Republican candidates back in 2016 in the primaries, I loved it. — Manuel

I liked when he pushed back against smarmy "journalists" playing "gotcha." But once the table manners return, it's time to settle down and act like adults. For Trump, being a jerk was not a tactic, but an actual personality/character trait.

keep on waiting and let the waiting itself become ecstatic. — 180 Proof

I might be able to do that! :smile:

The need to treat people better is certainly in the news. — Athena

My hope is with the younger generation and women. Sure, they have their 10%, but generally they are better than what's been the dominant paradigm.

That would be like giving your little finger to the devil. And naturally Trump makes democrats and other pinko-liberals like those in Hollywood absolutely crazy. For many that is the real thing they like in Trump. — ssu

Liz Cheney gave her finger to the devil. As Trump and those who like him, yes. As one wag said some time ago: "The reason people like Trump is because he pretends to hate the same people they really hate."

I think Mitt Romney is another of those rare Republicans. — ssu

I think a man of violence is the type they need. Bullies tend to stand down when called out. You'd think that former SEAL with the eye patch would stand up, but maybe he's actually a true believer. Can't believe he'd follow a coward like Trump, but it's not my party. They made their bed so burn 'em all down as far as I'm concerned.

lucid dreaming — 180 Proof

I've had some oblique experience with that, but mostly when I was younger. Man, what a trip! I want to grab that and hold on, but my brain will even fuck that up and start thinking about it while it's happening. :lol: I've only had one out of body experience, where I looked down at myself in bed. I wanted to pursue that and bought a book but I lack the discipline. I want it all and I want it now!

:up: Agreed. Makes you wonder if there is something in the water. I can't imagine being a Holocaust survivor listening to all these equations. :roll:

There’s a force in the universe that makes things happen. And all you have to do is get in touch with it, stop thinking, let things happen, and be the ball. — Ty Webb (Caddyshack 1980)

Gravity? :grin:

And we can spend our leisure time reflectively rehearsing (like practicing (habitualizing) martial arts) "logic and morality" in order to optimize "living in the now" which otherwise would be sub/less optimal. — 180 Proof

:100: Muscle memory can be a good thing. :up:

Shortly after posting my last I came across a T.V. reference about a pending show on Sequoya and it used the word "polymath." I had to look it up and when I did, I thought, "Boy, bet that 180 Proof guy is a polymath!" I would imagine that a polymath might be a person who could be in the now whilst thinking. I'm not sure, but if so, that would be cool.

P.S. A distinction can be found here: There was some guy who shot up a bunch of Republican legislators while they were playing a game of baseball. I'm pretty sure that guy did not find his incentive to act in the violent rhetoric of a bunch of Democrat politicians. Both sides have wingnuts, but only one side is inciting violence. Wait . . . before I'm corrected with some isolated example that might be out there in the weeds, let me correct that: Only one side has that pattern reference by AOC, above.

You are correct about the double standard, but that issue pales in comparison to what is really going on here.

It's not about the necessity of AOC having thicker skin, it's about the apparent double standards. — Benkei

The double standard is there. But I'm also seeing this:



And this:

https://stochasticterrorism.blogspot.com/?fbclid=IwAR2EQTHDuXuFWR7UHejmofUrYOn3LIRMXg-qIj4FsWOJObOBMtwTHqwYL64

And as I've said before, the real threat is not what they do to the opposition, but what they are doing to the colleagues on their own side of the isle. If Republicans are forbidden to think or act independently in support of traditional Republican values, even when that would require them to support actions which fly in the face of traditional Republican values, then we have a problem. The FBI and DOJ should be looking at that.

It's one thing to agree with Trump;
It's one thing to disagree with him but stay with him because you want his base;
But it's a whole 'nother thing when you disagree with him but stay with him because of threats of violence against you or your family. This latter category may be small, but it may be enough to create a monolithic personality cult that has nothing to do with traditional Republican values.

Liz Cheney is the only one I know of will the balls to stand up. If there are others, they need to stand up and push back. FBI? DOJ? I hope you are doing your job. You know, so we can all respect the rule of law.

Empathy, does it exist?

David Chalmer's hard problem of consciousness and, more generally, theory vs praxis (Mary's room argument). Why does a discussion on morality end up becoming one on consciousness? Is this some kind of a package deal? — TheMadFool

Where I think animals live in the now, some might say living in the now is to be unconscious. I tent to think living in the now is a state of super-consciousness. Animals live in a state of super-consciousness which might also be considered a lack of self-awareness. As stated before, when I'm living in the now, I'm not really thinking, much less about myself. When I start thinking, especially about myself or what I'm experiencing when I'm living in the now, *POP* it's gone, and I'm back to the same old BS of life.

IMO, empathy exists. It's another feeling, like love, fear, etc. In fact, where I believe there are only two feelings, with sub-categories of each, empathy is just one manifestation of love.

That brings up another question in my mind: Is feeling akin to thinking (i.e. a leisure time activity) or is akin to living in the now? I'm seeing a trend here, where I wondered about whether thinking itself could be a type of action, or living in the now. It makes me want to create a third category: 1. Leisure time activity; 2. Living in the now; 3. Living in the now whilst engaged in a leisure time activity. It's this third one that I'd like to better flesh out and define in order to distinguish it from the other two. Anyone who takes great joy, or misery, in thinking might be able to do that. Not me.

Hmmmm. As the judges use to say "I will take that under advisement." :grin:

Either way, it is worthy of a laugh, just as it is with the Kathy Griffen thing, as you pointed out. — NOS4A2

:up: It would be nice if more effort was put in to a laughter that would get both sides rolling on the floor. I don't know if that can even be done any more. In the old days, the roasts at the White House Press dinner were self-depreciating and funny. We've gotten jaundiced.

Censure has zero effect . . . — NOS4A2

Well, it has you in here raising a ruckus. LOL!

Anyway, we all know how the left will jump on the bandwagon with the right, all to burn their own down when they screw up; while the right will circle the wagons, and defend their own to the death. Anyone that fails to kneel before the godfather will be exorcised, ala Cheney. Kind of shows you who the patsy's are.

An anime meme is grounds for violence and revolution, apparently. But it might be better for all involved to stick to memes, that is if they could make a good one. — NOS4A2

Anime meme, or reality T.V. host, or a plastic head held by a known comedian. I think you parse the hair too thin. Besides, it's not the left looking for violence and revolution. I think, wait, let me check the record, oh yeah, they are going for a House Censure. DOH!

But we can agree, it should be well done, or not done at all: at least by elected representatives or the POTUS.

If they’re so weak-minded it should be easy for someone such as yourself to change them. — NOS4A2

You can't fix stupid. Well, Covid can. Maybe a bullet. But the left doesn't like guns and they go high when the right goes low. Unless they use a cartoon, but then the right loses their shit. And they wonder why the left gets verklempt. DOH!

It would be worse than that. This was just a fake cartoon that was obviously not supposed to be taken literally. They took it literally, alright. Him holding a severed head would be grounds for violent reprisal. You’ve already evoked notions of violent revolution because of it. — NOS4A2

Get back to me when the left storms the capital, or starts taking over state houses with their M-Forgeries, or threatening their own with violence for not holding the party line, or cancelling like a Republican in a cake bakery, or denying federal assistance based on affiliation, etc.

Your side is bringing it on themselves, if it ever comes.

Imagine if Gosar held up an AOC or horse mask with blood dripping from it. — NOS4A2

They'd probably do what the Republicans did and get their panties all up in a knot. :rofl: The point here is, the Right has the thinnest skin in the game. They talk tough but they are the first to start bawling when they have to eat their own medicine.

It’s nonsense; one has to wonder how they cope with real problems. — NOS4A2

Yeah, ask Kathy Griffin. :roll: Or Devin Nunes suing cartoon cow.

One wonders how a politician could face the adversity of Twitter memes. — NOS4A2

I know, right? I mean people have meltdowns over Dr. Seuss and Big Bird. What's up with that?

(Que my own whataboutism. :wink: Karma.)

Edited to delete comm with a party.

Here is my read on it: The "right" will have created a monster. It will have awoken a sleeping giant. When "the right goes low" the left will only "go high" for so long. Sooner or later the left is going to stand up on it's hind legs like it did in 1776, 1860, and 1941. Hopefully, if there is a victory, they won't be so "left" or magnanimous in victory. Hopefully they will finish the job this time. You know, so their kids won't have to deal with it again in another X number of years.

Either way, the right will have brought it on themselves. Time for them to be a little more tolerant and inclusive of those who don't think, look, act or pray like them.

On the other hand, it could be too late. The left may have neutered itself. I guess we'll see.

P.S. Can anyone imagine if Biden started taking a page from the right's play book? None of the BBB would be going to any state that didn't kiss his butt. The list could go on. And on.

faster than I can say Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. — Benkei

That's why they shortened it to AOC. :grin:

Anyway, stand by for the inevitable whataboutism. 3 . . .2 . . . 1 . . .

P.S. The real danger is not what the right does to the left; the real danger is what the right is doing to keep their own in line. That's what I want the DOJ and the FBI all over.

The only one I know of with the balls to stand up is Cheney. I disagree with her on 97% of the issues but I'd almost support her just for standing up to threats of violence and getting kicked off committees and disowned by the WY Republican Party.

I learn from your comments. — tim wood

:blush: :sweat: I hope that is a good thing. Thanks.

People disagree about objective facts now, so it's not possible to include "everybody" on a single political cause. — Manuel

I was just playing off your statement that "everybody does." If we can't rally around loving the children, then I'm going to take more time off.

This is a side note, but an anecdote is the guy who pretends to slave away, 9-5, all for his children. Then buys a brand new F-350 and a boat. I guess we could stretch and say "Yeah, it's all about spending quality time with the kids." Hmmmm. Okay. If we are going to differ on what is in the best interest of the children, fine. But if we can't agree that nukes aren't good for them, then we are down to the philosophical nut: "I'd rather me and my kids die by nuke for their freedom to be like me, than to forego immediate gratification for a world above water with some fish left to fish." What to do, what to do?

Perhaps, if work is goal-directed activity, play is non-goal directed activity. Any good? — bert1

I think both work and play can be executed in the moment, and both can be considered, before and after the fact, as goal-directed or otherwise. The question is, can the consideration itself be work and/or play in the moment? I suppose thinking about the past or the future, considering the past of the future, could itself be work or play in moment. Hmmm. I'd need to rethink some of my thoughts. :lol:

Everybody does. It's the profit makers that differ. — Manuel

I guess it's up to "everybody" to put their foot down. If they don't, do they get to say "There is nothing I could do!" ?

I hope the Chinese love their children too.

"… In Europe and America there's a growing feeling of hysteria
Conditioned to respond to all the threats
In the rhetorical speeches of the Soviets
Mister Krushchev said, "We will bury you"
I don't subscribe to this point of view
It'd be such an ignorant thing to do
If the Russians love their children too
How can I save my little boy from Oppenheimer's deadly toy?
There is no monopoly on common sense
On either side of the political fence
We share the same biology, regardless of ideology
Believe me when I say to you
I hope the Russians love their children too
… There is no historical precedent
To put the words in the mouth of the president?
There's no such thing as a winnable war
It's a lie we don't believe anymore
Mister Reagan says, "We will protect you"
I don't subscribe to this point of view
Believe me when I say to you
I hope the Russians love their children too
We share the same biology, regardless of ideology
But what might save us, me and you
Is if the Russians love their children too"

Sung by Sting

Nope. — NOS4A2

Yep.

Your purely mental taxonomies apply to your mental furniture only, and not to any actual flesh and blood individuals, the vast majority of whom you are not even aware exist, let alone have met. — NOS4A2

If they were purely mental taxonomies then you'd have nothing to complain about, now would you? Taxes are real and you, as an actual flesh and blood individual, will pay them, whether you like it or not. And that applies to all, whether I met them or not.

Wait, check that. My bust. If you are part of the 1% you don't have to pay taxes. I guess I'm talking only about actual flesh and blood individuals like you and me.

What theories of play interest you and what exactly is it that you are talking about when you think about 'play'? Also, what is a 'best' way to play? — I like sushi

I think play is living in the moment. Sometimes, but not always, that moment is fantasy. Nature might view play as practice, and serious business. Play, as natural, might agree. Play, as fantasy, might also agree. But let's not worry about such things. Let's play. This is serious business.

I’m already not a part of any collective. — NOS4A2

Oh yes you are! Whether you like it or not.

No one is. — NOS4A2

Everyone is. Whether they like it or not.

The error is in believing you are a part of anything of the sort. — NOS4A2

The error is thinking you/they are not. If you were not, then you would have nothing to complain about. You'd be this autonomous cool kid living on an island somewhere, untaxed and laughing at all us fools in the collective who pay taxes to clean up your island for you. :rofl:

Right. The stories we tell ourselves. Of course, you would never voluntarily pay more or less than is required, and will dutifully pay whatever the politician demands of you. That’s the extent of your voluntary action: you voluntarily do whatever the state tells you. — NOS4A2

For the life of me, if you aren't part of the collective and don't want to be, what the hell are you doing here? At the very least, take up arms and fight!

Whenever I hear the U.S. press say "He does (insert bad thing) to his own people" I wonder: 1. Does he view them as his own people? and 2. Do they view themselves as his people? If nobody involved thinks they are his people, then who are we to say they are? If you don't think you are our people, then we gladly show you the door. At least we are not abusing "our own people." I suppose you could always try and do something about it. Maybe some foreign press will say "Them 'Muricans is abusing they own people!" :rofl:

Or maybe you could vote. But doesn't that mean it would simply be

the extent of your voluntary action: you voluntarily do whatever the state tells you. — NOS4A2

That and complain about us?

I should add that you get to watch as the federal government steals your children’s wealth and labor to fund its boondoggles. — NOS4A2

No, they are stealing your children's un-earned inheritance to clean up the boondoggles we made. As it should be. My children are part of the collective and pay taxes voluntarily.

This will pave the way for Biden’s “Build, Back, Better” plan, which will hoist America’s decline into abject collectivism on the backs of its citizens. — NOS4A2

Emphasis added. Hmmmm. Interesting choice of words. :lol: