Good article. I’d disagree that truth cannot be transmitted simply. I’ve recently learned of the word “laconic” and it’s nice to know the name of “being very effective at conveying much with very little”. I agree that memes and virality are a bad way to do it. Memes and such is a dopamine reward circuit thing. Getting them, spreading to friends and social outlets, is a rush followed by a lack of purpose. I think truth, as we’d put it, and wisdom, are much more rare than that. It can be brief in its description, or it can be lengthy. Some people are better at one than the other, but no less effective. Christopher Hitchens sucked at brevity. Shi Heng Yi (modern Shaolin master that I enjoy) is phenomenal at saying a lot with very little. For myself, I’m long-winded, so I enjoy short and simple writers and speakers.
The referenced paper, on emissions, actually compares different urban densities. It does not compare urban emissions to rural emissions. I believe that there is such a study, but it might not take into account that many rural activities are done to support urban populations.
“Living in the countryside is more sustainable than living in the city”
Actually, the denser the city, the less emissions there are.
I think you need to deconstruct the above statement a little further and use your scout mindset and reason with first principles on this.
Cities take the water from the surrounding areas and funnel it to themselves. Most food is not grown in the city, but its end destination is. Most garbage is removed from the city to the surrounding area. Most building supplies are farmed, sourced, mined, outside of the city and brought there. Many other examples show why a city is less sustainable and the metric of CO2 emissions in a city is not a viable metric.
Furthermore, perhaps some first principles are in order on the reality of CO2 emissions being a sustainability issue in the first place.
Co2 emissions are not a sustainability issue unless it’s true that carbon dioxide controls the climate. If you’re truly interested in first principles that’s one.
It's funny, I find that my (and many others') writing can mostly be boiled down to one thing:
Adding nuance back into topics and ideas where nuance has been stripped away.
Great post.
If what doesn't kill you makes you stronger, then what makes you feel good makes you weaker.
I loved this essay! It inspired me and helped me contextualize some of what I perceive to be in-group bias and irrationality:
https://jmpolemic.substack.com/p/scout-mindset?r=1neg52
>“I think people’s thinking process is too bound by convention or analogy to prior experiences
But that's just literally correct Bayesian rationality. Priors matter.
Good article. I’d disagree that truth cannot be transmitted simply. I’ve recently learned of the word “laconic” and it’s nice to know the name of “being very effective at conveying much with very little”. I agree that memes and virality are a bad way to do it. Memes and such is a dopamine reward circuit thing. Getting them, spreading to friends and social outlets, is a rush followed by a lack of purpose. I think truth, as we’d put it, and wisdom, are much more rare than that. It can be brief in its description, or it can be lengthy. Some people are better at one than the other, but no less effective. Christopher Hitchens sucked at brevity. Shi Heng Yi (modern Shaolin master that I enjoy) is phenomenal at saying a lot with very little. For myself, I’m long-winded, so I enjoy short and simple writers and speakers.
Regardless, good stuff to think about.
The referenced paper, on emissions, actually compares different urban densities. It does not compare urban emissions to rural emissions. I believe that there is such a study, but it might not take into account that many rural activities are done to support urban populations.
Good and short
“Living in the countryside is more sustainable than living in the city”
Actually, the denser the city, the less emissions there are.
I think you need to deconstruct the above statement a little further and use your scout mindset and reason with first principles on this.
Cities take the water from the surrounding areas and funnel it to themselves. Most food is not grown in the city, but its end destination is. Most garbage is removed from the city to the surrounding area. Most building supplies are farmed, sourced, mined, outside of the city and brought there. Many other examples show why a city is less sustainable and the metric of CO2 emissions in a city is not a viable metric.
Furthermore, perhaps some first principles are in order on the reality of CO2 emissions being a sustainability issue in the first place.
Co2 emissions are not a sustainability issue unless it’s true that carbon dioxide controls the climate. If you’re truly interested in first principles that’s one.