Day 17
This one will be short as I am hoping to go to bed as soon as possible! But, I'm not about to give up this blogging streak for an extra 10 minutes' sleep, at least not yet.
I've been thinking about the night before last's entry, and I'll add a little to it here. It was about structures of ideolody, and how often there comes about a debate such that each opposing side is arguing for how to alleviate the symptoms of a problem, while not addressing the problem itself.
Perhaps this line of thought could be applied to the main prepared topic of a high school debate tournament I judged for last weekend. It was a resolution stating that Canada ought to make Nuclear energy its primary source of power generation.
The main lines of thought were:
Pro: Nuclear energy is clean, no emmissions, very little contribution co global warming, greater resources, less dependence on foreign fossil fuels, stellar safety records of nuclear plants (which is frightfully true, when compared to coal mining/oil drilling), etc.
Con: Meltdown risk, no particularly good way to dispose of nuclear waste, plants extremely expensive to built/operate, non-renewable just like fossil fuels, etc.
The main line here, presupposed by both sides of the debate, is that energy demand is on the rise in Canada, such that new power sources will have to be created at some point in order to meet demand. The pro's want that source to be Nuclear power, while the con's want otherwise (typically, the con debaters suggested renewable alternatives... wind, solar, tidal, and so on).
So let us connect this to my original thought: Each side argues against the other about how to deal with the problem of meeting the rising energy demand.
But that's not the real problem; the real problem is rising energy demand, not how to meet it. Solutions about how to meet it are flawed from the start, because it simply should not be met in the first place.
In my opinion, what Canada should do is curb energy use on the part of its people. Offer incentives, tax breaks, discounts on efficient appliances/lighting/insulation. Charge people for energy on a scale, ie. an increase of X dollars per kwh for every kwh they use over a certain reasonable quota. It would be shockingly easy to bring this country's power consumption down such that our current power plants could do the work, and then some, for decades to come.
Let us conclude by again analyizing this series of arguments from a formal perspective, ie. independent of their content. It is what I believe to be an example of two opposing arguments both going wrong for reason that they both accept the same flawed premise. My proposed solution, which refuses said premise, satisfies the aims of both the 'opposing' sides of the debate.
My final question is: with respect to Day 15's exmaple of abortion, might there be an equally satisfying solution that could bring opposing sides together toward the very same end? I think ther may be.
I've been thinking about the night before last's entry, and I'll add a little to it here. It was about structures of ideolody, and how often there comes about a debate such that each opposing side is arguing for how to alleviate the symptoms of a problem, while not addressing the problem itself.
Perhaps this line of thought could be applied to the main prepared topic of a high school debate tournament I judged for last weekend. It was a resolution stating that Canada ought to make Nuclear energy its primary source of power generation.
The main lines of thought were:
Pro: Nuclear energy is clean, no emmissions, very little contribution co global warming, greater resources, less dependence on foreign fossil fuels, stellar safety records of nuclear plants (which is frightfully true, when compared to coal mining/oil drilling), etc.
Con: Meltdown risk, no particularly good way to dispose of nuclear waste, plants extremely expensive to built/operate, non-renewable just like fossil fuels, etc.
The main line here, presupposed by both sides of the debate, is that energy demand is on the rise in Canada, such that new power sources will have to be created at some point in order to meet demand. The pro's want that source to be Nuclear power, while the con's want otherwise (typically, the con debaters suggested renewable alternatives... wind, solar, tidal, and so on).
So let us connect this to my original thought: Each side argues against the other about how to deal with the problem of meeting the rising energy demand.
But that's not the real problem; the real problem is rising energy demand, not how to meet it. Solutions about how to meet it are flawed from the start, because it simply should not be met in the first place.
In my opinion, what Canada should do is curb energy use on the part of its people. Offer incentives, tax breaks, discounts on efficient appliances/lighting/insulation. Charge people for energy on a scale, ie. an increase of X dollars per kwh for every kwh they use over a certain reasonable quota. It would be shockingly easy to bring this country's power consumption down such that our current power plants could do the work, and then some, for decades to come.
Let us conclude by again analyizing this series of arguments from a formal perspective, ie. independent of their content. It is what I believe to be an example of two opposing arguments both going wrong for reason that they both accept the same flawed premise. My proposed solution, which refuses said premise, satisfies the aims of both the 'opposing' sides of the debate.
My final question is: with respect to Day 15's exmaple of abortion, might there be an equally satisfying solution that could bring opposing sides together toward the very same end? I think ther may be.
Comments