It ain't pretty being easy... (soopageek) wrote,
It ain't pretty being easy...
soopageek

political compass

Location: Columbus, Ohio

Flying J has been upgrading their networks. I have a connection here in Columbus like I had in Georgia a few days ago - on fire. Woohoo... I'm gonna get used to this.

I get to go back to NYC this weekend. Maybe I'll make it up there in time to see the Rainer Maria show Saturday night. At any rate, I should have all day Sunday to goof off in the city that never sleeps.

At the behest of delicarose, I took a little test at
[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<a href"http://www.politicalcompass.org">') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]

Location: Columbus, Ohio

Flying J has been upgrading their networks. I have a connection here in Columbus like I had in Georgia a few days ago - on fire. Woohoo... I'm gonna get used to this.

I get to go back to NYC this weekend. Maybe I'll make it up there in time to see the Rainer Maria show Saturday night. At any rate, I should have all day Sunday to goof off in the city that never sleeps.

At the behest of <lj user="delicarose">, I took a little test at <a href"http://www.politicalcompass.org">politicalcompass.org</a>.

My results are this:
Economic Left/Right: -3.62
Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.69

I was surprised I wasn't more to the right on my economic axis. Interestingly, I placed on the compass in almost the exact same spot as Ghandi. But in the larger picture I guess this makes some sense. When delving into ""third party" possibilities a number of years ago I heavily considered the Libertarian Party, but couldn't get past their extreme-right economic planks even though I was hip to their liberal social agenda. My place on the compass identifies me as a mild "Libertarian Left", which, is a moderate Democrat I guess, which is basically what I am. I used to be a moderate Republican, but changed parties because Republicans are just too fucking goofy.

What does all this mean? Nothing to me really. Because most of all I'm a pragmatist. I think the environment should be respected but I recognize that the advancement of human beings as a species will be at odds with this. I think we have harmed the environemnt, but I'm no tree hugger either. I think we place too much importance on ourselves to think we will destroy the ecology of this planet. Evolution is much bigger than we are and has been operating for billions of years. We're just a ripple in the sea of time and nature will adapt to everything we can throw at it. Animals being saved from extinction? There are more animals extinct from before we were ever here that didn't need us to kill them off. I dunno why I'm picking on environmental issues to point out my pragmatism... maybe it's because I was thinking on this earlier in the week for no apparent reason. One of the basic principles of physics states that matter cannot be created nor destroyed. We can't add anything to our little biosphere that wasn't already here, nor can we truly destroy it - we can only move it around. Recycling is important, but we could grow landfills thousands of times larger than we have them now and still not even begin to make a dent before we would run out of things to throw in it. The ozone? Global warming? Shrinking polar caps? Eventually those things will come to pass but if geological science is to be trusted, these were things that would happen again anyway. The geological process of our planet create ample pollution of their own. The wildfires of California I'm sure happened when it only took some molten lava from a Pacific Rim volcano or even something as simple as a lightning stirke before humans ever thought about starting fires. Speaking of volcanoes, they like to explode exponentially more forceful than Horishima and Nagasaki combined. I certainly don't advocate just stinking up the planet - I think we have a responsibility to preserve and conserve within reason. But thinking we can somehow commune with nature symbiotically in total harmony is naive. Someday the peat moss of our mortal shells will be the fossil fuels of another species. It's a cycle that will continue until the energy in the core of our cosmic rock or the sun goes kaput - whichever occurs first and if natural history is any indicator, it's not likely there'll be any humans around when it happens.


Nature rights itself, usually in cataclysmic proportions - giant meteors, ice ages, drought, floods
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 2 comments