Even evil has standards

[sabotabby]

Wow, check it out! Former "center-left" cyclist turned warmongering fascist Charles Johnson has turned again. Colour me skeptical (like someone pointed out on fengi's LJ, it'll take one more terrorist attack to turn him back, but it's almost heartening to read.

I wonder if he'll apologize for his blog being a gathering place for genocidal maniacs for the last eight years.

If he's serious, though: Welcome back to the reality-based community.

Comments

[flintultrasparc.livejournal.com]

I've lived both rurally and in a city. People can be unpleasant regardless of their population density. I find that in the city, it's actually considerably easier to ignore the people I regard as unpleasant while still being involved in the lives of those people I want to be involved with.

No individual human being is self-sufficient. One of the reasons that smaller societies can so easily create and maintain taboos as well as social harmony is that being exiled from a group is the equivalent of death.

If no human being is self-sufficient, then our survival depends on negotiation over resources. Sometimes, people fight when things aren't negotiated in a way they like. However economic stratification and exploitation can occur as easily in a small community as they can a large one.

How many people can the world support? Noone knows the answer. How many people can the world support living in a certain way with certain technologies... well that we can make some good estimates about. We also have good estimates on how many people exist now, and how many people are likely to exist in say the next thirty years. I submit that current population and project population are numbers that we have little control over; however we have a much greater control over the way in which those billions will live--atleast in regards to our individual lives.

I'm sorry you feel uncomfortable with where you live now. What makes you feel uncomfortable? I know there are cities that are considerably less dense in population than London (and more ecologically destructive per capita) as well as cities that are more population dense.

We have an ethical responsibility to the environment and animals because we have the ability to reason. Animals have no ethical responsibility. The Environment has not ethical responsibility. Try arguing about your right to life with a shark or a tornado. Animals can experience pleasure... mammals all have oxytocin. The wolf, however, is not concerned about what pain a squirrel might feel.

I think you are too hard on people's capacity for empathy. I think people on average might be a lot more empathic and nicer than you are currently willing to accept them to be.