B8005-2 Moron Ideology: Instead We Ought To...

      A common argumentation strategy in energy discussions  is the “Instead We Ought To” routine.  Notice how many times a discussion of, say, drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico or in Alaska terminates in the hopeless non sequitur of “instead we ought to develop sustainable alternative energy sources such as wind, solar or nuclear energy.”  What makes that statement a non sequitur is its wholesale abandonment of the basic argument about oil.  Remember the discussion or argument is about oil.  Let me repeat: the discussion is about oil.  It is not about alternative energy sources that have no applicability to oil-based processes, fuels, and lubricants.  Wind mills do not and cannot power automobiles in any practical way in an expansive nation like the USA.  So why take the argument away from a discussion of oil drilling (as a means of reducing dependence on foreign oil or reducing the price of gasoline, etc.) and into an inapplicable foray into silly assertions about alternative energy that inherently cannot deal with oil dependence or gasoline prices.  Its just as silly as saying, “Instead of paying such high grocery bills, you ought to plant rose bushes in front of your house”
      Notice, too, that a discussion of high gasoline prices begins as an economic argument when some assert that increased drilling will result in larger supplies of oil that will reduce the price of gasoline.  When the discussion is deflected to alternative energy sources, it ceases to be an economic argument and, instead, becomes an ideological argument. When we assert that we ought to do something that does not address the crux of the argument (the price of gasoline), we engage in ideology.

B8005-1 Moron Ideology: The Giddy Conceptualizer

THE GIDDY CONCEPTUALIZERS: Persons who believe that something “is true or correct or desirable in principle” - even though the abject failings of such principles are plainly seen by everyone -  generally cannot be dissuaded by logical arguments because they firmly believe the principled items ought to be true even when they are not.  There is no effective argument against something that “ought to be true.”  The adherents of such conceptions (magical thinking) today are exemplified by closet communists and socialist chameleons; social justice advocates; environmental whackos; PETA; ACLU; Wind Power; Alternative Energy advocates, and Global Warming enthusiasts, etc.

DISMISSAL OF PERTINENT CRITICISMS:  If one argues, for example, against a scheme for generation of electrical power by solar cells alone and brings out the inconvenient fact that such solar cells do not function in the dark, the Giddyists will ignore this argument as if generation of incremental quantities of power during daylight hours is sufficient to replace all coal-fired power generation.  Notice the high tolerance for the absurd on the part of the Giddyist. In principle, clean alternative electrical power generation should be desired over dirty, coal-fired electrical power generation.  No one would argue for the dirty alternative if all things were equal.  But all things aren’t equal.  The pitiful quantities of electricity generated by solar cells cannot replace conventional coal-fired or natural gas-fired electrical generation and it cannot meet the practical needs of society in its current manifestation.  Why, then, would anyone pretend that true alternatives are being examined here?  Solar cells are not alternatives at all.  They are “cute” raised to some artificial power by their apparent attractiveness - often stated as “affordable, renewable electrical energy.”  Yeah.  When the sun goes down, however, their real effectiveness is plainly seen by all: they simply do not work at night.  Then the conventional generation turbines had better be rolling to provide the demanded power.  As a society, why would anyone pretend that solar cells (or wind turbines) are meaningful alternatives to that coal-fired power plant down by the river?

CHANGING THE TERMS OF THE ARGUMENT:    When the Giddyists are shown, to cite yet another example, the world-wide failures of communism, they resort to the defense that enlightened communism by competent leaders would have produced the nirvana described by Marx and others.  In other words, failure is ascribed to the incompetence of past participants rather than to the basic problems inherent in the system itself or in its fundamental clash with the limitations of human psychology.
      Notice that the Giddyist advances his argument by changing the terms of the argument in his demanding some additional, utopian preconditions: “If you supply [wildcard condition], then [wildcard ideology] will work.”  Hardly.  Mr. Fidel Castro has spent more than fifty years searching for that elusive [wildcard condition=police brutality, coercion, re-education, bribes, etc.] that might make his cherished [wildcard ideology=communism] work.  He’s still looking for the winning formula.  North Korea and Venezuela are continuing experiments in the quest to sequester similar [wildcard condition(s)] that might make communism work.  The record to date: consistent and uniform failure everywhere communism is attempted.

CRITICISMS VACATED BY AGREEMENT: Returning to our power generation example, those who oppose coal-fired electrical generation can be silenced by agreeing with them.  Since coal-fired electrical plants are undesirable (to the Giddyists) for a multitude of reasons, it is illogical for them to rail against those plants while they consume electrical power from those plants.  Their arguments can be silenced by merely pulling the power meters from their meter sockets and letting them sit in the darkness to ponder what power generation method ought to be used instead of that nasty, dirty, coal-fired generation.