Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Future of Coal Country

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–97 of 97 posts

Re: The Future of Coal Country

#91

Post by themacguffinman »

cmurf wrote: post #90
themacguffinman wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except for the crucial difference that progressives generally don't think sluts, gays, or nerds are engaging in negative behaviour.

The point is that society can be confused on what is positive and negative behavior, and end up scapegoating. And it is effective only in a reptilian brain context. It'd be similarly ignorant to praise murdering your enemies. Sure no doubt about it, it's really effective. Doesn't mean it's legal or ethical. These things are brute force hammers. If you really think shaming has value, read the Scarlet Letter.

Of course shaming can be abused or misguided, just like almost everything in this world we live in. The idea that we shouldn't use something just because it can possibly be abused is ridiculous. Like everything, it has a degree of risk that we weigh and judge as moral agents.

And we all live in a "reptilian brain context". I'm not sure what other context there is. It makes no sense to reason about society as if we weren't all half a chromosome away from a chimpanzee.

Re: The Future of Coal Country

#92

Post by kefka_p »

rfrank wrote: post #86
kefka_p wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Insofar as telecommuting for education, I'd wager connectivity leaves something to be desired in some rural areas. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for distance education. That said, some skills are best taught in a hands-on fashion. Add to that such learning approaches are more easily adapted to by some than others.

Virtual reality. Telerobotics. Initiatives for improved rural internet access. All of these problems are addressable without forcing people to move.

Addressable, at cost. VR requires pretty high-end hardware in most cases. Telerobotics doesn't sound inexpensive, either. Surely solutions can be found to various problems, but that doesn't unto itself make something a sound decision. Just because one can doesn't mean one should.

Rural telephone service and electricity both required subsidization by those who've opted to lead more practical lives i.e. lives where phone and electricity and other various utilities don't have to be directly subsidized by others.

Is it fair to force people who make reasoned and informed decisions about their own lives and where they live to pay for the decisions of those who prefer the country life?

I'm not advocating forcing people to move, under any circumstances.

Re: The Future of Coal Country

#93

Post by akgerber »

rfrank wrote: post #77
akgerber wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is often true on the coasts, but not particularly true in Appalachia or Appalachia-adjacent urban areas. A basic house is $65k in Morgantown: https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/Morgantown-WV/22898744... And a nice house with a 10 minute funicular commute to Downtown Pittsburgh (the Paris of Appalachia) isn't too much more: https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/11363350_zpid/globalre... And one can pay much le…

How many people in Appalachia can afford a down payment on any house? From a quick search of the addresses you linked, all are in places with high rates of property & violent crime. None of them seem like better options than being poor in your home town, and avoiding the myriad risks associated with big moves when you're a low earner who can't take any hits at all to monthly income without major sacrifices.

Neither Troy Hill nor Duquesne Heights nor the South Side Slopes nor the entire city of Morgantown are terribly crime-ridden, by either personal experience or any statistics that I know of. Troy Hill is the 'worst' area but mostly has low-level quality of life crime. High crime neighborhoods generally have $30k houses, which are too cheap to mortgage and bought by investors that rent them out until they're falling apart, then abandon them.

Both Pittsburgh and Morgantown are pretty prosperous, yet remain affordable enough for blue-collar workers to own homes close enough to the center of the city to commute by foot, bus, streetcar, funicular, PRT pod, or bike. The neighborhoods I posted are a bit rundown, but perfectly livable— I'd live in any of them.

The schools aren't necessarily great in the Pittsburgh neighborhoods but they usually aren't in rural Appalachia either.

I don't disagree that moving is hard when one is poor and one relies on one's social connections for a lot of support. It's just not because of a lack of houses in the prosperous parts of Appalachia.

Housing shortages on the coasts are a huge issue, and a huge issue for national inequality— but overbuilding and inner-city abandonment remain a bigger issue in a lot of cities in the middle of the country.

Re: The Future of Coal Country

#94

Post by woodandsteel »

VLM wrote: post #69
woodandsteel wrote: post #45

Trump says he is going to bring back coal as a part of his program to make America great again. But the reason America was so great is that it was at the leading edge of technological change. That is relevant because in the 19th century, coal was the hot new technology. It was used for powering factory machines, electric generators, railroads and steam boats, heating, and producing steel. But technology continued to…

The geography is special and we're kind of the "Saudi Arabia" of world coal production. As the worlds best producer (or one of the best anyway) we should be the one place in the world still digging coal. Kind of like how wheat is not quite as sexy as javascript frameworks. However, the midwest has the unique geological feature of being the "Saudi Arabia" of wheat production, so despite wheat not being as sexy as SV s…

>The geography is special and we're kind of the "Saudi Arabia" of world coal production. As the worlds best producer (or one of the best anyway) we should be the one place in the world still digging coal.

But Trump isn't just saying that the US should remain #1 in a shrinking industry. He claims that he can get coal employment back to where it was decades ago. That's crazy.

Re: The Future of Coal Country

#95

Post by woodandsteel »

briantakita wrote: post #56
woodandsteel wrote: post #45

Trump says he is going to bring back coal as a part of his program to make America great again. But the reason America was so great is that it was at the leading edge of technological change. That is relevant because in the 19th century, coal was the hot new technology. It was used for powering factory machines, electric generators, railroads and steam boats, heating, and producing steel. But technology continued to…

I wouldn't say we are going technologically backwards if you take a systemic look at energy, manufacturing, & infrastructure. Steel is needed to rebuild existing infrastructure (roads, bridges, railroads) that have been falling apart over the years. Steel is also needed to new infrastructure (buildings, electrical grid, solar panels (including those which will line the Mexican border wall), walls, housing, equipment,…

>I wouldn't say we are going technologically backwards if you take a systemic look at energy, manufacturing, & infrastructure.

It's going backwards because we need to be at the cutting edge, which is renewables. Trump is facing the past, when the US was great partly because of coal, rather than looking to where things are going in the future.

>Coal power is also inexpensive

But natural gas is even cheaper, and wind and solar are becoming so.

>cleaner than ever

But it is still much less clean than renewables, or even natural gas.

>Coal can also be converted to diesel allowing states to create their own energy & reducing our need for foreign fuel sources.

That's expensive, diesel pollutes, and besides fracking is already replacing foreign oil.

>Even if we decide to move toward renewable resources, having this coal stockpile in our back pocket will give leverage in acquiring the rare earth minerals needed for batteries & solar cells.

I assume you mean getting rare earth minerals from China, but that wouldn't work because China already has all the coal it needs, and besides is moving fast to get off of coal and onto renewables.

Re: The Future of Coal Country

#96

Post by cmurf »

themacguffinman wrote: post #91
cmurf wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is that society can be confused on what is positive and negative behavior, and end up scapegoating. And it is effective only in a reptilian brain context. It'd be similarly ignorant to praise murdering your enemies. Sure no doubt about it, it's really effective. Doesn't mean it's legal or ethical. These things are brute force hammers. If you really think shaming has value, read the Scarlet Letter.

Of course shaming can be abused or misguided, just like almost everything in this world we live in. The idea that we shouldn't use something just because it can possibly be abused is ridiculous. Like everything, it has a degree of risk that we weigh and judge as moral agents. And we all live in a "reptilian brain context". I'm not sure what other context there is. It makes no sense to reason about society as if we we…

Your idea of shaming works only because you've had success bullying weaker opponents who back down, and appear to learn the "lesson" you're generously handing out.

Find an on par opponent and you'll get escalation of shaming, get your ass handed back to you with wit, or the person will just ignore you.

So I refuse that it's effective. It's perhaps been effective for you, self selective bias. You probably don't shame people you've sized up who won't respond to shaming the way you want.

Re: The Future of Coal Country

#97

Post by themacguffinman »

cmurf wrote: post #96
themacguffinman wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course shaming can be abused or misguided, just like almost everything in this world we live in. The idea that we shouldn't use something just because it can possibly be abused is ridiculous. Like everything, it has a degree of risk that we weigh and judge as moral agents. And we all live in a "reptilian brain context". I'm not sure what other context there is. It makes no sense to reason about society as if we we…

Your idea of shaming works only because you've had success bullying weaker opponents who back down, and appear to learn the "lesson" you're generously handing out. Find an on par opponent and you'll get escalation of shaming, get your ass handed back to you with wit, or the person will just ignore you. So I refuse that it's effective. It's perhaps been effective for you, self selective bias. You probably don't shame…

In case you've forgotten, this discussion thread is about societal shame, not individual bullying as you seem to imply. Societal shame isn't individuals engaging other individuals in some kind of shame battle. It actually consists of collective exclusion and isolation. Society (and the institutional structures that comprise it) doesn't get its "ass handed back" by people who buck its pressures; at most, these pariahs ignore society and get ignored in return.

But yeah, I totally only believe this because I'm a successful bully (◔_◔)

Post reply on HN