I am not exactly sure how the left "earned" the moniker "Party of Science." When it comes to gender affirming care, there is clearly no science behind that, and the recent winning lawsuit that resulted from physicians and clinicians ignoring science to mutilate a teenage girl will now be followed by hundreds more due to there being no science behind this travesty. The party of science didn't follow any science in the way it mismanaged the COVID pandemic, with closing society, closing schools, 6-foot distancing requirements, vaccinating children, etc., and now, by existing the WHO, the legal system will have fun going after those who violated science to promote their own attempts to mimic China's authoritarian approach to healthcare. The Party of Science created decades of false science and hysteria around climate change, whose zero emissions and deindustrialization approach is now being debunked and rebutted by past climate alarmists like Bill Gates. This will not only reverse the devastation that false climate science has led to the poverty of the most needy in the world and the deindustrialization of most of Europe, but also free most of humanity to pursue an energy agenda that will lift billions out of poverty. In fact, the only country to become a winner from the false science of climate alarmism is China, which used coal to power their production of solar cells, EVs, and wind turbines that they then exported to the rest of the world and destroyed all other countries' green technology industries as a result. So, I guess I will withhold giving this label to the left for the time being until I see more evidence that they actually believe in and are willing to follow science.
Why should anyone choose to embrace technology wholesale? Perhaps political parties, societies, citizens, and individuals of all stripes would do better to cultivate critical thought and discernment. We can embrace electricity, refrigeration, toilets, and vaccines, while also choosing not to embrace chemical weapons, the atomic bomb, drone warfare, TikTok reels, and generative AI, just to name a few examples.
It's encouraging to see that we agree on this. One of the more subtle things that I was aiming at, but didn't quite hit, is that being a party of science corresponds at least somewhat with the notion that we should "follow the science," which I think is a fairly unassailable approach to take in governing and living, assuming the science stays uncorrupted by ideology. To say the same about technology in a general sense, though, that is, to say "follow the technology," would seem misguided to me, as not all technologies will guide us in directions we want to go, and we should therefore be discerning about which ones we want to introduce and employ, and which ones we want to resist and "destroy," as it were. It seems like we are in general agreement here, too (though do let me know if you disagree), but I felt compelled to clarify.
I agree that “follow the technology” doesn't make sense. We should lead technology, not follow it!
That said, I think “follow the science” has been abused and is suspect. Yes, strictly speaking, you should follow knowledge/truth. But this slogan has been applied to lend the weight and credibility of the hard sciences (e.g., climate science) to conclusions that are really in the domain of economics, politics and philosophy (e.g., what to do about climate change).
Science is physics. Tech is the application of science.
Science is based on objective data and verification. Tech is based on subjective moral decisions.
Science follow curiosity. Tech follows desire, values, and necessity.
The Left, Progressives, the Hard Left, Post-Modernists, Greens, et al have a lot to offer - and so do the Science/Tech/Modernist/Achievers, as do the Traditional/Conservative/Religious/Law & Order folks.
All political stripes have both shadow and light elements - good/worthy/healthy elements, and bad/destructive/unhealthy elements. The more one group demonizes the unhealthy elements of the "other", the more the "other" defends and attacks.
To win, those left of center would be wise to "steelman" and deeply empathize with the positive, healthy, and aspirational elements and values of the center [modernist/tech/achievers/etc] and the right [traditionalists/conservatives/religious/law & order, etc].
When you understand the values, desires, needs, aspirations, and fears of "the other" as well or better than they do, and you empathize with their shadow and their light, and you frame and build your case for higher standards and inclusivity centering on both YOUR and their aspirational/light values and needs, then we can make progress, close the gap, find common ground, and build a healthy future together.
Be the actual change you wish to see. Forgive and yet remember the past. Surrender into the fact of our differences. See from a higher and longer perspective, deeper empathy, broader care and concern, and a willingness to both have shadow and be mistaken.
Transcend AND include. Embrace AND hold higher standards. Love AND have boundaries.
Perhaps, in YOUR and/or your peer's political talk and worldview, it is.
Objectively, most politically astute observers see this as juvenile political fratricide. Others will recognize that it's neither cute, clever, nor helpful and will simply laugh it off as mere performative call-out or inside-the-bubble virtue signaling.
Sure, you get 10 points for "othering" and demeaning all "progressives". Well done, you. But if you're left of center and want to win against Trump, MAGA, et al, and pull the country left, then you're going to have to broaden your perspectives, embrace all the "others" in the center and left of center, surrender your judgement and find common ground.
The same realpolitik goes for every stripe of leftist, green, progressive, liberal, democrat, social democrat, democratic socialist, center, center left, post-modernist, modernist, 2nd-tier integralist, and all the rest.
We can all name, blame, stigmatize, judge, belittle, demean, call out, shame, and exclude all of those who "refuse" to agree with our [obviously true, right, correct, and perfectly morally defensible] position or who are too bought off, stupid, entrenched, blinded, jaded, ignorant or any other way or manner of making someone an "other" or less than or inferior to us, and thereby feel steeled in our righteousness and the absolution of our purity....
But that doesn't win elections - in fact, it does just the opposite: it empowers our opponents and demoralizes and undermines our peers and would-be allies.
Heroic attempt. Why do I keep hearing "The Apology" in the background?
Neither Right nor Left are particularly interested in Truth, they seek Power. The Right has the money, the Left has the creatives and the professoriat. Madison boasted of "setting ambition against itself." But he couldn't stop Burr's bullet.
Frankly I will never ever eat lab grown meat(including fish). I'd sooner become a strict vegetarian than put a single piece of that meat in my stomach.
When whoever calls themself a progressive they're shouting two things at the same time: 1. I'm an elitist; 2. Depending on my biological sex I'm a symbolic crown Prince or I'm a symbolic crown Princess
FYI individuals on the left don't have a monopoly on the label "progressive". A person either gives themself that label or that label is bestowed upon them by somebody else.
Science is so much better for the "party of science" than tech. It's settled, nothing ever changes. Those expletive deleted techies keep making new things and changing old things to make them better. Only way the "party of science" could keep up with tech is to give up making "waitress sandwiches" in DC restaurants. Not a fun lifestyle.
Solid take on how the left lost its way on growth. The shift from building things like the Panama Canal to fearing technology itself was a massive strategic error. When I think about how much potentital goes unrealized because we cant build infrastructure anymore, it feels like a self-inflicted wound that nobody seems ready to fix.
There's a huge opportunity for the Progress and Abundance communities to collaborate, but a persistent gap emerges in trying to answer these questions: Who defines "Progress"? Who defines the collective/societal "Missions" to be embarked on? How does disparate impact get mitigated?
This!!!! 10000000000000x this!!!!!!!!
I am not exactly sure how the left "earned" the moniker "Party of Science." When it comes to gender affirming care, there is clearly no science behind that, and the recent winning lawsuit that resulted from physicians and clinicians ignoring science to mutilate a teenage girl will now be followed by hundreds more due to there being no science behind this travesty. The party of science didn't follow any science in the way it mismanaged the COVID pandemic, with closing society, closing schools, 6-foot distancing requirements, vaccinating children, etc., and now, by existing the WHO, the legal system will have fun going after those who violated science to promote their own attempts to mimic China's authoritarian approach to healthcare. The Party of Science created decades of false science and hysteria around climate change, whose zero emissions and deindustrialization approach is now being debunked and rebutted by past climate alarmists like Bill Gates. This will not only reverse the devastation that false climate science has led to the poverty of the most needy in the world and the deindustrialization of most of Europe, but also free most of humanity to pursue an energy agenda that will lift billions out of poverty. In fact, the only country to become a winner from the false science of climate alarmism is China, which used coal to power their production of solar cells, EVs, and wind turbines that they then exported to the rest of the world and destroyed all other countries' green technology industries as a result. So, I guess I will withhold giving this label to the left for the time being until I see more evidence that they actually believe in and are willing to follow science.
You might notice that I said, “The left *styles itself* the party of science”…
Loved it!
Why should anyone choose to embrace technology wholesale? Perhaps political parties, societies, citizens, and individuals of all stripes would do better to cultivate critical thought and discernment. We can embrace electricity, refrigeration, toilets, and vaccines, while also choosing not to embrace chemical weapons, the atomic bomb, drone warfare, TikTok reels, and generative AI, just to name a few examples.
For sure. We shouldn't embrace technology wholesale, just as we shouldn't reject it wholesale either.
It's encouraging to see that we agree on this. One of the more subtle things that I was aiming at, but didn't quite hit, is that being a party of science corresponds at least somewhat with the notion that we should "follow the science," which I think is a fairly unassailable approach to take in governing and living, assuming the science stays uncorrupted by ideology. To say the same about technology in a general sense, though, that is, to say "follow the technology," would seem misguided to me, as not all technologies will guide us in directions we want to go, and we should therefore be discerning about which ones we want to introduce and employ, and which ones we want to resist and "destroy," as it were. It seems like we are in general agreement here, too (though do let me know if you disagree), but I felt compelled to clarify.
I agree that “follow the technology” doesn't make sense. We should lead technology, not follow it!
That said, I think “follow the science” has been abused and is suspect. Yes, strictly speaking, you should follow knowledge/truth. But this slogan has been applied to lend the weight and credibility of the hard sciences (e.g., climate science) to conclusions that are really in the domain of economics, politics and philosophy (e.g., what to do about climate change).
No need to take this too seriously. This is just a pep talk for a political party hence the ideological undertone.
Science is physics. Tech is the application of science.
Science is based on objective data and verification. Tech is based on subjective moral decisions.
Science follow curiosity. Tech follows desire, values, and necessity.
The Left, Progressives, the Hard Left, Post-Modernists, Greens, et al have a lot to offer - and so do the Science/Tech/Modernist/Achievers, as do the Traditional/Conservative/Religious/Law & Order folks.
All political stripes have both shadow and light elements - good/worthy/healthy elements, and bad/destructive/unhealthy elements. The more one group demonizes the unhealthy elements of the "other", the more the "other" defends and attacks.
To win, those left of center would be wise to "steelman" and deeply empathize with the positive, healthy, and aspirational elements and values of the center [modernist/tech/achievers/etc] and the right [traditionalists/conservatives/religious/law & order, etc].
When you understand the values, desires, needs, aspirations, and fears of "the other" as well or better than they do, and you empathize with their shadow and their light, and you frame and build your case for higher standards and inclusivity centering on both YOUR and their aspirational/light values and needs, then we can make progress, close the gap, find common ground, and build a healthy future together.
Be the actual change you wish to see. Forgive and yet remember the past. Surrender into the fact of our differences. See from a higher and longer perspective, deeper empathy, broader care and concern, and a willingness to both have shadow and be mistaken.
Transcend AND include. Embrace AND hold higher standards. Love AND have boundaries.
In political talk the label "progressive" is a term of elitism & dishonesty
Perhaps, in YOUR and/or your peer's political talk and worldview, it is.
Objectively, most politically astute observers see this as juvenile political fratricide. Others will recognize that it's neither cute, clever, nor helpful and will simply laugh it off as mere performative call-out or inside-the-bubble virtue signaling.
Sure, you get 10 points for "othering" and demeaning all "progressives". Well done, you. But if you're left of center and want to win against Trump, MAGA, et al, and pull the country left, then you're going to have to broaden your perspectives, embrace all the "others" in the center and left of center, surrender your judgement and find common ground.
The same realpolitik goes for every stripe of leftist, green, progressive, liberal, democrat, social democrat, democratic socialist, center, center left, post-modernist, modernist, 2nd-tier integralist, and all the rest.
We can all name, blame, stigmatize, judge, belittle, demean, call out, shame, and exclude all of those who "refuse" to agree with our [obviously true, right, correct, and perfectly morally defensible] position or who are too bought off, stupid, entrenched, blinded, jaded, ignorant or any other way or manner of making someone an "other" or less than or inferior to us, and thereby feel steeled in our righteousness and the absolution of our purity....
But that doesn't win elections - in fact, it does just the opposite: it empowers our opponents and demoralizes and undermines our peers and would-be allies.
Both of you: Please try to bring more light than heat to this conversation.
See the comment policy here: https://newsletter.rootsofprogress.org/about
Mea culpa. Apologies.
That's quite alright, we all get carried away sometimes. Thanks for understanding.
Solid and succinct pep talk.
Nice Aspirational Message for the left. Let us hope they and the right take it.
Heroic attempt. Why do I keep hearing "The Apology" in the background?
Neither Right nor Left are particularly interested in Truth, they seek Power. The Right has the money, the Left has the creatives and the professoriat. Madison boasted of "setting ambition against itself." But he couldn't stop Burr's bullet.
Keep up the good fight, but avoid duels.
San Francisco came to its senses and elected a normal mayor. Time to do the same in Minneapolis.
There is no party that supports progress. Hasn't been for a long time.
Frankly I will never ever eat lab grown meat(including fish). I'd sooner become a strict vegetarian than put a single piece of that meat in my stomach.
When whoever calls themself a progressive they're shouting two things at the same time: 1. I'm an elitist; 2. Depending on my biological sex I'm a symbolic crown Prince or I'm a symbolic crown Princess
Are you saying Teddy Roosevelt was on the left? Not sure what to make of using his image here.
He was one of the most famous Progressives
FYI individuals on the left don't have a monopoly on the label "progressive". A person either gives themself that label or that label is bestowed upon them by somebody else.
Science is so much better for the "party of science" than tech. It's settled, nothing ever changes. Those expletive deleted techies keep making new things and changing old things to make them better. Only way the "party of science" could keep up with tech is to give up making "waitress sandwiches" in DC restaurants. Not a fun lifestyle.
Solid take on how the left lost its way on growth. The shift from building things like the Panama Canal to fearing technology itself was a massive strategic error. When I think about how much potentital goes unrealized because we cant build infrastructure anymore, it feels like a self-inflicted wound that nobody seems ready to fix.
*I* wouldn't say this, but Freud might have called it anal retentiveness.
There's a huge opportunity for the Progress and Abundance communities to collaborate, but a persistent gap emerges in trying to answer these questions: Who defines "Progress"? Who defines the collective/societal "Missions" to be embarked on? How does disparate impact get mitigated?