Posted By BillHeise on May 13, 2010

Here’s one reason why I get in so much trouble with, not only academic liberals, but with conservatives. Even my closest friends don’t have infinite patience for my philosophical antics. My dear friend, who lists his political affiliation on his Facebook information page as ‘Crazy-Eyed Liberal,’ posted a facetious article on Facebook with the title ‘Large Air Spill At Wind Farm. No Threats Reported. Some Claim To Enjoy The Breeze.’

Setting up the Argument

Someone with obviously conservative values—I am going to block out the names of the actual participant, so let’s call him Obvious Conservative—had started off the conversation with some “Drill, baby, drill” comments:

Obvious Conservative: Too bad the wind farms can’t produce cost efficinet reliable energy. We need more nuclear power there’s no reason to be burning coal to keep the lights on. It would also free up diesel and crude for other applications. Wind is a pipe dream.

Well, my dear friend, ‘Crazy-eyed Liberal,’ was not going to put up with comments like that, and he replied:

‘Crazy-Eyed Liberal’: Not yet, they can’t but you put sufficient funds into research it will. I’ve always said, if you mandate NASCAR to run electric cars, 42 teams will find away to make electric cars fast, efficient, cost-effcient and even cool. OR at least quiet. On the other hand you’ll never see the headline “Large Spill at Nuclear Power Plant, No Threats Reported.” But you might see Blinky, the 3-eyed fish.

So far, so good. We have a classic conservative-liberal face-off. Obvious Conservative replies:

Obvious Conservative: Research won’t make the wind a constant. And better batteries still have huge implications for disposal. Nuclear is inherently more reliable and when you factor in the waste from electrical storage no worse. Have you ever seen a lithium battery let go? I saw one on surveillance camera turn a surefire (flashlight) into a cannon.

Obvious Conservative is obviously thinking in wider terms of the implications of the use of all the effects of batteries. This reflects my concerns with the use of longer-lasting light bulbs. Where are the environmentalists on that question of disposal of a mercury-based product? They are (to my mind) shockingly silent. But Obvious Conservative has not thought of all the implications of the problem, as ‘Crazy-Eyed Liberal’ is quick to point out:

‘Crazy-Eyed Liberal’: Because nuclear waste has no implications for disposal at all. Its all good as long as its not in my state, right?

As far as I’m concerned, my friend ‘Crazy-Eyed Liberal’ is right. But Obvious Conservative is not done yet. He replies:

Obvious Conservative: It’s no worse than batteries the size of Rhode Island. If we still had a space program we might work out a cost effective method to dispose of heavy materials out side of every state. We would have time money and energy at that point to work out a way to get rid of waste and promote the preservation of the species by ensuring one errant rock doesn’t bring all this to a premature end.

This move is know in philosophy as shifting from an absolute position (‘I’m right; you’re wrong’) to a relative position (‘I may not be right, but so are you, so NAH NAH NA NAH NAH!). Such unacknowledged position shifts are common on both sides of the political spectrum. So this is where I, Bill Heise, philosopher, come in.

Enter the Philosopher

I go after the Obvious Conservative first:

William Heise: Obvious Conservative, have you ever thought of how ineffective the space program really is? Two lost spacecrafts in under 140 flights. You and I wouldn’t get into a car if there was a 1.5% chance that we would get killed before we got out of it. You want to launch nuclear-laden rockets into space? Not over my country.

In my opinion, Obvious Conservative is relying on future technology to solve the problems of space travel. But they have not been solved yet. And until they are solved in reality, there’s no point in putting forward our hopes for the future as real solutions to present problems.

That’s like putting the cart before the horse. Being a philosopher, I don’t put too much faith in ideas—which can be (and frequently are) no more than fantasies of the imagining mind—without some prospect of success in the ‘real’ world.’ This was one of the things that drove me out of academia.

Obvious Conservative responds to me, as follows:

Obvious Conservative: William, I’d stay home if I were you. The odds of dieing in a traffic accident are 1:77 over a life time and 1:5953 of dieing with in one year.

Okay, I have never been very good at math, but I have questions. Shouldn’t the chance of dieing [sic] in any given year be more like 1 in 70 (assuming that we are given three score year and ten on average)? I think that the statisticians are working some of their statistical ‘mojo’ here.

My second question comes from my belief that the statistician’s model is static. What would happen if I were to add the dimension of time to my model? Wouldn’t the odds of dying in any given year change over time? If I am a young baby, then my odds of dying would be less than if I was a 115 year old woman. This obviously doesn’t occur to Obvious Conservative.

Other points in Obvious Conservative’s statistical model do not square with me, either. For instance, Obvious Conservative’s statistical approach is designed to tell me that I should go driving, either, because of the 1 in 77 chance that I will be killed. Well, my first response to this is that the numbers are not comparable. I get in my car for a two-way trip almost every day. That’s 730 trips a year. That works out to a 1 in 56,530 (that is, 730 * 77) chance of my being killed in a car crash every time I enter a car. I would most likely be dead before March 11th (the 70th day of the year) if the space shuttle was comparable to driving in my car. And when I take in other cause of death behind the wheel—like drinking before I get behind the wheel, using mind-altering drugs, driving at night, or exceeding the speed limit, none of which I do—then my chances are lowered even more. Yes, there is still a chance I will get wiped out, but I do my best to minimize my chances of being wiped out.

That doesn’t stop Obvious Conservative from telling me that ‘Crazy-Eyed Liberal’ and I are nothing more than obstructionist reactionaries.

Obvious Conservative: Why do the obstructionists always come out against nuclear power? Well if you don’t like nuclear let’s drill here and drill now. At least then we can keep the computers and facebook servers running.

So I have exhausted the patience of conservatives, who feels (I’m guessing) that I am too liberal. That happened to me in graduate school, and I have gotten used to that response. We hear no more from Obvious Conservative in this thread. I like to think that my challenge to his premises have made him reconsider his position in light of my fuller philosophical position, but I know that that is not the only position available to him. It’s far more likely he has slunk away, still content with his premises, and cursing my ignorance, [I talked about my encounter with a similar conservative, See my post on My Answer to the Skeptics].

The Philosopher Turns on His Old Friend

But no sooner had I finished dispensing with my conservative friend that I turned my playful mind towards my ‘Crazy-Eyed Liberal’ friend. On this point, ‘Crazy-Eyed Liberal’ agrees with Obvious Conservative’s way of looking at the world. ‘Crazy-Eyed Liberal’ is also planning on solving real-world problems with his untested (and perhaps impossible) solution to the problem of energy. He just assumes that clever American NASCAR drivers will be able to come up with a solution to the problem of producing an electric car if the government applies enough force. But, as I, Bill Heise, philosopher, point out, that is not the only solution:

William Heise: ‘Crazy-Eyed Liberal,’ have you considered the ‘other’ possibility that if you mandated electric cars that costs would be so prohibitive that NASCAR might just go out of business before costs came down? The drivers would pass the costs on to consumers, who would find cheaper alternatives. That’s how entrepreneurs and black-market economies get started.

Now here, I am attempting to drag ‘Crazy-Eyed Liberal’ back from his clear-eyed view of the world in his own mind—what we in the philosophical community are inclined to call ‘potential’—back to the world of reality—what we in the philosophical community are inclined to call the ‘actual’— where time is an factor and not all potentialities are capable of being enacted at a reasonable cost.

I continue:

William Heise: That’s the danger of pursuing alternative energies without a cost-benefit analysis. We live in a world where China is not going green because Americans think it’s a good idea. They need to create 25 million jobs a year to keep their people happy. Our jobs are going oversea because their costs are significantly lower. We can have all the job-killing programs you and I like, but there are limits to the spill of jobs Americans will be willing to endure while we wait.

Philosophical Dimensions to the Philosopher’s Argument

I add the element of time into ‘Crazy-Eyed Liberal’s view of the world, and this changes things. In the world we live in, the Chinese will not give in to the American demand that they pursue green energy. They will laugh all the way to the bank. Americans have a limit to how much job loss they will put up with before they get tired of politicians pursuing their political solutions which are at odds with the long-term sustainability of the economy.

This is the lesson that I am trying to make to my friend ‘Crazy-Eyed Liberal’ respond to. Americans, in my view, are looking at the long-term effects of enacting Obama’s policies, which have been built on the too-optimistic, too-clear-eyed view of President Obama. I hope that ‘Crazy-Eyed Liberal’ will follow me here, but once again, I recognize that he has other choices. So I add something that I hope will make him not think I’m a huge jerk:

William Heise: Short term cost is the basis for the Republican push for nuclear power and against wind power. Not defending capitalism, Republicans, or nuclear power (whose down-sides scare the crap out of me). Just saying.

I add my feelings on capitalism, Republicans, and nuclear power, on the hope—also slim, as I learned in liberal graduate school—that I will not lose my friend of 30 years. In the world of politics, you’re either with us of against us. I feel that I am like the voyager Philip Nolan, who drifts as a prisoner on the high seas, longing for a country. No matter which position I take, I always turn out to be one of ‘them,’ the perennial ‘other’ on which politicians depend to make their positions secure.

And, of course, I am right. ‘Crazy-Eyed Liberal’ ignores my plea and accuses me of being anti-competetive:

‘Crazy-Eyed Liberal’: Nope: 48 teams working to beat the others…eventually they will find a way. What do you have against good old fashioned competition anyway? Commie bastardo.

Commie Bastardo

The ‘Commie bastardo’ comment has me worries, not because I haven’t heard it leveled at me before (I have), but because it betrays the limit of ‘Crazy-Eyed Liberal’s patience for me. I now am sure that my attempt to drag him out of the position which is so clear in his mind (in potential) to a position which is actually feasible in the ‘real’ world (the actual) will fail. I make one last attempt to reason with ‘Crazy-Eyed Liberal,’ but I am already quite certain that I have lost.

William Heise: ‘Crazy-Eyed Liberal’: Commie bastardo, indeed. Which of the 48 teams will discover the secret to producing low cost wind energy? Will they SHARE that secret with the others? Or will they just get out of the NASCAR business altogether, patent their low-cost alternative, and begin exploiting their competitive advantage with the monopoly power granted to them by the patent office, just like drug companies do?

In my response, I am trying to get ‘Crazy-Eyed Liberal’ to acknowledge parallels between his position and the position of hated drug companies. But ‘Crazy-Eyed Liberal’ doesn’t bite. He remains in his castle in the sky world of ‘us’ and ‘them.’ I am quickly becoming one of the hated ‘them’s in his eyes, as well.

‘Crazy-Eyed Liberal’: While teams don’t share technology, they are incredibly adept at copying one another, and once one team nails it, its impossible to keep it from the others, and thus from the scientific/automotive communities in general. By the way, the NASCAR reference was for electrical powered cars in particular, not necessarily wind power. If we developed a cheap, efficient, acceptable means of powering cars without the use of crude oil we would have no need to import oil or drill for it in ecologically fragile places. Good bye Grand Isle, LA.

Human beings tend to follow the money, and I think that I can crack the nut by pointing out more consequences of this behavior than ‘Crazy-Eyed Liberal’ is acknowledging. But ‘Crazy-Eyed Liberal’ has missed my point about the patent office protecting new ideas so that people can profit from new ideas. He forges ahead with his argument as though I hadn’t said anything at all; and, perhaps because ‘Crazy-Eyed Liberal’ has known me for over 30 years and still wants to remain my friend (I hope; I hope), he gets distracted by one of Obvious Conservative’s points.

‘Crazy-Eyed Liberal’: Also, I love being called an obstructionist. I see it as my life’s ambition.

The Appearance of a Reasonable Moderate

At last, we agree on that. This is where I would have stopped, but then a reasonable moderate, whom I shall call Reasonable Moderate, steps in.

Reasonable Moderate: I have heard there’s this thing called the sun, and I guess scientists think it may be possible to use it’s energy to power things…

This is a reasonable position for Reasonable Moderate to have taken. It balances the available positions. ‘Crazy-Eyed Liberal’ responds playfully:

‘Crazy-Eyed Liberal’: Reasonable Moderate, you’re just a an obstructionist.

Reasonable Moderate: Well if Monty Burns can build a huge sky shield to block out the rays, I can build a wind powered NASCAR racer. If I am an obstructionist, it’s of the mock variety.

‘Crazy-Eyed Liberal’: I was just mocking being called an obstructionist by Conservative above who must be related to Montgomery Burns or something.

Okay, I have no discipline, and rather than letting go, I continue to pull on the loose thread of argument. I attempt once more to make my case for the distinction between potential and actual and of the priority of the actual over the potential, which may be imagined but which may impossible in the real world:

William Heise: Reasonable Moderate and ‘Crazy-Eyed Liberal,’ your models make sense in a perfect world, and I agree with you in a perfect world. But this is not a perfect world. The problem is China. The Chinese will pursue coal and oil, while we concentrate on energy that cost more to produce. Energy resources will flow towards the lowest cost, away from America towards China.

Let’s change the model from energy to manufacturing to see what happened in the America v China contest. In a world of imperfect cooperation, China has paid low wages to its workers, while America has suffered an exodus of manufacturing jobs. If we pursue green jobs before we have a cost model in place, our economy will suffer; theirs will prosper.

I don’t like it any more than you do, but that is the way the world works.

Reasonable Moderate responds, again in a playful fashion:

Reasonable Moderate: If we were to build let’s say a wall around China, a huge wall, a great wall, we could forbid all the exporting and importing to and from China. Then, we could harness the sun and wind, plant flowers and live free of all forms of oppression and hatred.

I don’t take the element of play into account (as everybody knows I should) as I respond:

William Heise: Repeat for all nations on earth and I am with you. Oh wait. We’d probably have to build a wall around each state, since different states have different regulations. And counties compete with each other, so we’d have to build walls around each county, as well. And, of course, towns, and subdivisions, until we got to each individual. Only then will be safe from competing with one another. Until we build those walls, we can think about the fact that the Great Wall of China didn’t keep the Mongols out after all.

My larger argument here is my attempt to drive the argument back to the ‘ground’ of argument in a scientific principle based in ‘nature.’ The problem with that is that I myself don’t believe that human arguments are founded in ‘nature.’ They are founded in ‘imagination’ which then goes looking for a foundation in nature after the fact. We build up our reasons on the basis of nature to keep our minds on track.

Reasonable Moderate, again in the spirit of fun, is attempting to moderate an argument that he probably feels has gotten out of control. My last minute emoticon (happy face) is my attempt to play along, but I’m not very good at it. Never have been. People like me and (I hope; I hope) people like ‘Crazy-Eyed Liberal’ are people who don’t hesitate to get into fights for principles we believe in. We have been friends since 8th grade, and we share that trait in common.

Once again, Reasonable Moderate attempts to balance two opposing positions using humor, but he can’t quite come to terms with the contradictions of his position.

Reasonable Moderate: Everyone gets their own wall in your plan? You are a genius. I vote for you! But wait, do I vote for you inside my wall, or yours?

What if we built walls with words and call them embargoes and tarriffs and trade agreements? What if we built walls with emotions and attitudes and actions. So many walls! We need more walls AND less walls.

Into My Wheelhouse

Okay, we’re in my wheelhouse now. I’ve been studying walls since I was 17 (ever since I read about Raskolnikov staring at the wall in his apartment), and though the problem baffles Reasonable Moderate, it doesn’t baffle me. The answer is to give up balanced positions, which are positions available to us only in our minds (in potential) for asymmetrical positions of the real world (the actual). Such positions require that we make hard choices in which someone is going to be unhappy. Drill for oil, unhappy environmentalists. Don’t drill for oil, unhappy oil workers. There is no position in the actual world in which everybody is going to be happy.

‘Crazy-Eyed Liberal’ responds:

‘Crazy-Eyed Liberal’: tear down the wall!

That is why ‘Crazy-Eyed Liberal’ and I have remained friends.

Reasonable Moderate responds as a reasonable moderated should:

Reasonable Moderate: but it’s a perfectly good wall, a damn fine wall…

‘Crazy-Eyed Liberal’: Roger Waters disagrees.

Reasonable Moderate: fuck him and his $200 tickets, he’s a wall building hypocrite.

Pretty strong meat there from Sam Peckinpah.

Anyway, I attempt to make one last jibe at ‘Crazy-Eyed Liberal,’ saying:

William Heise: If we build walls out of words then people can tear them down with other words. If we build walls by protecting our borders with embargoes, tariffs, and trade agreements, then people will trade somewhere else. Walls are good for walling us off from the rest of the world. ‘Crazy-Eyed Liberal’ and Ronald Reagan are right when they urge us to “Tear down this wall.”

That should make him crazy. And then, as an after-thought, I remind Reasonable Moderate that I am not in fact the first to have said this:

William Heise: Reasonable Moderate, my plan of walling us all off wasn’t invented by me. It is a plan that runs from Descartes through the existentialists, who walled each individual off from every other individual in the world (as well as from nature, God, and society). And it doesn’t work, as much greater thinkers than me have found out since I graduated from high school.

The Lesson

The lessons I draw from this encounter are as follows:

1) Facebook is not the place to engage in philosophical arguments. But I cannot help myself.
2) Facebook is not the place for subtle arguments.
3) My attempts at defusing my mind with humor are unsuccessful.
4) That is why I write my blog, which nobody reads.

Those are my thoughts of the day. Now I have to contact ‘Crazy-Eyed Liberal’ and ask him (not for the first or last time) if we’re still friends.

Categories: Personal, Philosophy
Tags: