Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Students steamed at Stanford

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_8258437

How do you get 6,000 college students whipped up into a lather?

Here's one way: Secretly install low-flow, eco-shower heads in their dorms over winter break.

The slow drip has triggered a deluge of complaints in bathrooms all over Stanford University. But a compromise may be ending the water wars. Officials now promise to retrofit hundreds of showers with politically incorrect, higher-pressure nozzles.

This is encouraging news, especially in conjunction with the backdown on thermostat control earlier this year. It will teach the viros that they have to slow way down with their agenda, or else they're going to face a backlash. Let's hope they're not going to learn that lesson! :P

Link to post
Share on other sites
This is encouraging news, especially in conjunction with the backdown on thermostat control earlier this year. It will teach the viros that they have to slow way down with their agenda, or else they're going to face a backlash. Let's hope they're not going to learn that lesson! :dough:

This sort of thing is emblematic of the concrete-bound thinking that has become endemic in our society. People support anti-freedom ideologies like environmentalism as long as the consequences are abstract. But when the consequences become concrete, as in this case, or the thermostat case, or the occasional attempt to get rid of the flush toilet, then people get up in arms.

The problem with this, and the reason I don't find it particularly promising, is that concrete-bound mentalities can not understand the value of freedom and will not act to protect it in the long term. Rejection of the bad when it gets in one's face is not enough.

This is a good 'teachable moment', however. It provides a good opportunity to try to connect the abstract ideas of environmentalism to their concrete consequences. My reaction is "If you support these nice-sounding environmentalist bromides, then this shower is exactly what you've been saying you want."

Link to post
Share on other sites

In case any of you are ever a victim of this cruel event, simply remove the shower head, drill out the plastic thingy that impedes the flow of water and replace the shower head. Works like a charm. :dough:

Link to post
Share on other sites
This sort of thing is emblematic of the concrete-bound thinking that has become endemic in our society. People support anti-freedom ideologies like environmentalism as long as the consequences are abstract. But when the consequences become concrete, as in this case, or the thermostat case, or the occasional attempt to get rid of the flush toilet, then people get up in arms.

The problem with this, and the reason I don't find it particularly promising, is that concrete-bound mentalities can not understand the value of freedom and will not act to protect it in the long term. Rejection of the bad when it gets in one's face is not enough.

This is a good 'teachable moment', however. It provides a good opportunity to try to connect the abstract ideas of environmentalism to their concrete consequences. My reaction is "If you support these nice-sounding environmentalist bromides, then this shower is exactly what you've been saying you want."

I just want to make note of my agreement here. Well said, Kyle. B)

In case any of you are ever a victim of this cruel event, simply remove the shower head, drill out the plastic thingy that impedes the flow of water and replace the shower head. Works like a charm. :P

Never been a victim, but love the solution! I'll have to remember it. :dough:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Isn't low flow technology a bad idea to begin with anyhow? Low flow shower? Long showers! Low flow toilet? More flushes and longer waits for the running to step in between handle presses!

Indeed, and having to use a lowflow toilet on a regular basis in my rental housing, I can provide some anecdotal evidence in agreement. Ye Gods, the flushing, I practically have to lean on the handle and to add insult to injury, the toilet clogs on a regular basis. I have no idea whether this is due to a diet too rich in fiber or what, but lowflows(at least the fixtures I have) are very poorly designed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This sort of thing is emblematic of the concrete-bound thinking that has become endemic in our society. People support anti-freedom ideologies like environmentalism as long as the consequences are abstract. But when the consequences become concrete, as in this case, or the thermostat case, or the occasional attempt to get rid of the flush toilet, then people get up in arms.

Great observation! It hadn't occurred to me to make that connection.

The problem with this, and the reason I don't find it particularly promising, is that concrete-bound mentalities can not understand the value of freedom and will not act to protect it in the long term. Rejection of the bad when it gets in one's face is not enough.

I absolutely agree; the reason I think it is encouraging news is simply that it buys us some time. As I said, it will make the viros slow down their agenda, not abandon it. Concrete-bound people will reject sudden, great attacks on their quality of life, but will accept small and insignificant ones, thinking that they "don't matter much." But when people have become used to the lack of some amenity, the viros are ready to turn their attention on the next one, and the string of many small inconveniences will eventually add up to the complete destruction of all the achievements of industry and of all opportunity for the development of new technologies.

So yes, definitely, the only thing that will do in the long term is to teach people to reject the entire ideological basis of environmentalism.

This is a good 'teachable moment', however. It provides a good opportunity to try to connect the abstract ideas of environmentalism to their concrete consequences. My reaction is "If you support these nice-sounding environmentalist bromides, then this shower is exactly what you've been saying you want."

:thumbsup:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Isn't low flow technology a bad idea to begin with anyhow? Low flow shower? Long showers! Low flow toilet? More flushes and longer waits for the running to step in between handle presses!

That's right; low flow doesn't save water--it wastes time. It is typical of all viro "technologies" to fail to achieve their intended effect, or to even have the opposite effect, and all the ones they have to introduce by force are detrimental in their net effect if man's life is the standard.

Link to post
Share on other sites
if man's life is the standard.

Here I think you give them too much credit -- man's life is not their standard

And here:

It is typical of all viro "technologies" to fail to achieve their intended effect,

I don't think you give them enough credit -- they do achieve their intended effect: sacrifice of man.

For real viros at least.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't Stanford students who dislike the new shower heads have the option of transferring to a university with normal, politically incorrect plumbing? Or simply moving to off-campus quarters? The water-saving devices may indeed be a bad idea, but they are hardly "anti-freedom."

On another thread we have been discussing the "love it or leave it" command. But here is an instance of where it really applies.

Edited by Gary Brenner
Link to post
Share on other sites
Here I think you give them too much credit -- man's life is not their standard

Oh, I wasn't implying that it was the viros' standard. I meant it as the implicit, approximate standard (and what should be the explicit and clearly-grasped standard) of the majority of well-meaning, productive Americans.

The viros' standard, of course, is man's death.

they do achieve their intended effect: sacrifice of man.

Let me put it this way then: They fail to achieve the specific environmental objectives the viros use to justify their introduction with (such as water conservation, carbon reduction, etc.). Of course, such objectives should not be pursued in the first place; pursing them, and usually without success to boot, prevents people from pursing life as an objective, and thereby works towards the viros' real goal: death.

Hope that clears things up with regard to my position. (Clarity is one's friend, but it often requires many more keystrokes than succinctness!) :thumbsup:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't Stanford students who dislike the new shower heads have the option of transferring to a university with normal, politically incorrect plumbing? Or simply moving to off-campus quarters?

They currently still do, but if environmentalism continues to gain political influence, they won't because normal plumbing will be against the law.

The water-saving devices may indeed be a bad idea, but they are hardly "anti-freedom."

This in response to (emphasis added):

People support anti-freedom ideologies like environmentalism
?

That is the only post before yours where the word "anti-freedom" occurs in this thread. Nobody claimed that the "water-saving devices" were themselves anti-freedom. A device cannot be anti-freedom or pro-freedom any more than a gun can be guilty of murder. It is the ideology of environmentalism that khaight called anti-freedom, and that is a proposition that hardly needs demonstration in this day and age.

I also have to correct your labeling of the "water-saving devices" (what a servile euphemism! how about calling them what they are, a time-wasting, self-esteem-killing, hygiene-destroying, medieval-minded anti-invention?) as "a bad idea." A bad idea is something like telling your German business partner a WWII joke. Calling these intentionally impractical showerheads anything less than one hell of a bad idea is praising them with faint condemnation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't Stanford students who dislike the new shower heads have the option of transferring to a university with normal, politically incorrect plumbing?
Generally for small issues like this, better than boycotting a business, one should complain; otherwise, one might find that no business quite meets one's standards.

In addition, it is highly unlikely that this is simply a question of Stanford trying to save money on water (as CF pointed out).

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to post
Share on other sites
Generally for small issues like this, better than boycotting a business, one should complain; otherwise, one might find that no business quite meets one's standards.

In addition, it is highly unlikely that this is simply a question of Stanford trying to save money on water (as CF pointed out).

Correct. The students did complain. And they won. I simply wanted to correct the implication made above that the new nozzles represented an anti-freedom measure.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It is typical of all viro "technologies" to fail to achieve their intended effect, or to even have the opposite effect, and all the ones they have to introduce by force are detrimental in their net effect if man's life is the standard.

I am not sure if this is entirely true even though the green movement has pushed for many money-wasting initiatives such as recyclable toothbrushes.

However, are there not some technologies that allow businesses to save money through more efficient uses of energy without sacrificing comfort? For example, programmable thermostats or lights that automatically shut off when nobody is in the vicinity. Compact fluorescent bulbs seem to have some potential for saving energy despite their obvious drawbacks of containing mercury and rapidly burning out on dimmer switches. Anyway, I have no idea if compact fluorescent bulbs actually do save money in a way that exceeds their significantly higher cost. Needless to say, the banning of the incandescent bulb is utterly ridiculous.

Do those no-flush urinals save a lot of money on water bills? They seem to work fine in my experience, but I have not researched this either.

Anyway, these non-sacrificial, productive advances that help reduce energy costs are surely to be credited to productive individuals; not to the Environmentalist movement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gary is correct that, currently, Stanford students have the option of moving. As a private institution, Stanford has the political right to construct their student housing however they wish. Environmentalists, however, do not support Stanford's right to do so in cases where Stanford's wishes conflict with environmentalist dogma. Suppose Stanford wants to keep using incandescent light bulbs? I don't think it's a stretch to say that, if it had the political power, the environmentalist movement would deny Stanford's right to use regular-flow showerheads, and that is why I described the environmentalist ideology as anti-freedom. I did not say, nor did I imply, that low-flow showerheads as such are anti-freedom, and I don't think anybody else in the thread did either. They're just frustrating and ineffective devices which get deployed under pressure from environmentalists.

However, are there not some technologies that allow businesses to save money through more efficient uses of energy without sacrificing comfort? For example, programmable thermostats or lights that automatically shut off when nobody is in the vicinity. Do those no-flush urinals save a lot of money on water bills? They seem to work fine in my experience, but I have not researched this either.

Like a broken clock, even environmentalists are occasionally correct. Some of the technologies they push do offer genuine efficiency improvements -- the programmable thermostat and the no-flush urinal are two examples. However, it is worth noting that precisely because these technologies offer genuine value, they do not require support from environmentalist premises to achieve success in a free market. Capitalists do not advocate wasting time, energy or effort. We're all in favor of ways of getting more for less in our pursuit of values.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I am not sure if this is entirely true ...

Hah! I just realized that I misread Capitalism Forever's quote, which is listed here. That shows what happens when I am posting when I should be working. :lol:

Yes, I agree with Capitalism Forever and Khaight that the typical technology pushed from the extreme Environmentalist movement (i.e., those who want man to sacrifice values for the sake of the environment) often fails to achieve its intended purpose and often is detrimental to man's standard of living. However, since their standard of value is preserving the environment, sometimes they advocate technology that happens to actually help man's standard of living. However, any benefit that may come from the Environmentalist movement should be correctly viewed as a coincidental side-effect rather than a conscious goal of the movement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...