Why Do We Hate What's Good for Us?

The inability to think outside a political mind-set is a mental illness, thus the "hate".

USB is right, GA

In regards to the questioner, who made you god to tell us what is good for us?

Im in solar cause I have to change to survive, Big wind mills in my back yard, no way!

The best things we could do for humans and the poor would be to produce power in the cheapest most efficient way possible, new nuclear pebble bed reactors and other nukes are it. Every penny increase in elec.bills puts that much more burden on the lower classes just above the welfare rolls struggling to pay for all the new fees, educating their kids and trying to climb into the middle class.

Focus off the "questioner" who is not "telling you" what is good for you.
Your missing the point of the question.

GA for you Usbport!

Awesome. I actually started reading this article thinking about computers and how my dad at 60 is finally starting to realize that he needs to use them for work. And then we get this crap from the Green Team.

Only because there is too much noise as it is! Good observation.

The title is based on a conclusion not supported by the facts. We resist change, we move around certain structures (habits) that shape our daily living automatically. Anything that rearranges those structures makes us re-think our lives by developing new habits. Originally, our ancestors resisted the changes you mention as now being our status quo.

This reminds me of the marketing dilemma presented by the owner of a cider operation that I managed. Why can't we get people to buy cider, which is good for them, as much as they buy cigarettes, which are bad for them? Of course addiction to psychoactive substances in cigarette smoke was a big part of the answer. It explains why people KEEP buying something that they know is bad for them (and that most smokers say they want to stop, but cant), but why do they try it in the first place?

Usbport gives an example of one of the cognitive/affective phenomenon that have been observed to be useful in marketing. "No one's going to tell me [fill in the blank]." Marketers frequently attempt to use the "reverse psychology" technique to take advantage of this tendency of ours. If a product/candidate/idea is associated with the "conforming" crowd, it effectively turns part of the consumer audience away from the product/candidate/idea. The flip side of the negative sell is the positive sell. What positive image is associated with the product/candidate/idea in question? The iconic Marlboro Man—independent, strong, possessing rugged good looks—was such an effective positive image to get people to try tobacco that the government declared war against him. Real people battling an imaginary character--that's one influencial figment of our imagination!

Image may not be everything, but it is huge in our decision making. For the environmental movement, the intellectual debate is too murky for either side to claim unequivocally that the facts support or debunk anthropogenic climate change. It turns the decision into more of a popularity contest than an informed decision. One picks a side, then learns the apologetics for the side picked. In terms of image, Al Gore is hardly as compelling a figure as the Marlboro Man. How many people really want to be thought of as being like Al Gore?

I realize there is more to the debate and decision-making process than just image and "marketing psychology." These, however, play a significant role in individual and group behavior on the topic. As far as sounds and noises are concerned, these are just strange little nit-picks that show up in one side's apologetic while the othe side answers them, as you did, by demonstrating that the nit-pickers can put up with other louder and more obnoxious sounds if they really want to. It's all part of the strange game we play when making, justifying, and defending decisions.

P.S. I am one of those who believes that observed changes in global climate have more to do with natural processes than human activity, but I am also a fan of cutting way back on trash/pollution production. It has more to do with "Scottish thrift" than anthropogenic climate change. I prefer to wash and reuse metal, ceramic, and wooden dishes, for example, than to use once then throw away plastic ones.

One of the worst sounds is the sound of hypocrites. You know........the people that want a green new world as long as nothing is installed within 1000 miles of where they live.

Remember the Kennedy's. All for saving the planet, but any talk of utilizing the relatively constant winds off Martha's Vineyard to generate elecricity, and ...........OH NO NO NO, AND SPOIL THE VIEW FROM THE COMPOUND.........ABSOLUTLEY NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I live in Mass, the hypocrisy IS stunning. More so when you consider that the historical society were the most adamant opposition, nothing says hypocrite like not allowing green tech to power, the oldest, most inefficient homes and buildings that the historical society tries so hard to keep in circulation.

George Carlin has a great bit on N.I.M.B.Y, not in my back yard. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43Egm0j_p1A

I can't stand the noise from giant sub woofers, it actually hurts, and is more intrusive than any other noise I can think of.

There is way too much noise pollution in the world today and I do my best to avoid annoying sounds.

I don't watch TV or listen to the radio much getting my news over the internet.

I put up with trafic noise driving to and from work because I have to drive in traffic or quit my job. This is a no-brainer on lack of real choice.

Your assertion that I should accept the crunch of the "biodegradable" bag is a choice I can make. I used to like harvest chips but now I won't touch them because the wretched noise the bag makes to me is intolerable.

In the long term the "green" proponents of this world would make a much greater impact if they found ways to be "Green" that aren't in your face and offensive to the common person. It won't do the manufacturers much good chasing a "green" goal if they lose their customers in the process.

As for wind power, if you study the facts, wind power is not a reliable or cost effective solution to energy needs. The costs per KWH generated by wind power are quite high, even with federal subsidies . Wind generated power is 2 - 4 X as much per KWH as traditionally generated power. Also, the greatest demand for electricity is in the dog days of summer when the wind is often minimal or completely absent. Wind is not a cost effective or reliable source of electrical power except in niche areas of the country where winds are sustained on a constant basis.

Stop chanting the "green" mantra. Think through the real world ramifications of what is being proposed and then proceed with caution. To blindly jump on the band wagon and spew rhetoric without research and thought is not becoming to your professionalism.

I just want to add to your post that the high cost of wind power comes for the cost of maintaining those windmills. There are a lot of windmills that sit idle because they need repairs but the costs are too much.

Where do those costs come from? Labor is part of the equation but the real costs come for the price of new parts. Too much overhead I think.

The State of California is in financial crises because we're paying too much in overhead for people filling positions that are dupicating other agencies and paying over inflated salaries. I like the Gubenatorial Candidate of New York of the "Rent is too damn high Party." If I were living in New York, that's who I'd vote for.

Why the hell so damn high? People are spending buying less but they keep the prices so high. They might be able to generate more revenue if they lower the prices enough to move more volume.

I've never heard anyone complain about biodegradable bags. I think worrying about a potatoe chip bag is insignificant in comparison. Where did this issue come about and why? When we have an island of plastic garbage floating in the ocean the size of Texas.

Why do we hate change? Because we are so much propaganda from both sides of the fense that people really don't know what to believe, so they choose what is already in place because that is what they are familiar with because that is the easiest path to follow.

Quite frankly, I think both Republican and Democratic parties need to be removed from Government. I believe they are both going to lead us to fall like the Romans.

Regards.

I like to give you a GA but there is NO option of a GA over an Off topic marks.

What I understood that both the parties may be called Pros & Cons as it is in politics.

The same part in real life they [Pros & C] have to play to regulate the what are called

'New Ideas'. All that glitters may now may be a gold but a black Hole tomorrow. So by there views a type of balance of view is brought to us.

Its we to take a balanced output or else.

I can agree with 99% of the responses regarding the politics and economics (or false economics) of this and that, but the issue of "hating what is good for us" is relative to what we as individuals believe is for OUR good, and the issue of any changes is just a matter of time-to-acceptance.

Taken out of the context of 'noise', let me compare it to a completely different issue ... littering. For those who may not remember, at least in the USA, it was common 50 years ago or so, for anyone driving along to toss their trash out the window ... beer bottles and 'pop' bottles and just about anything else. As a kid, I remember the roadsides resembling more of a garbage dump than a greenway. Of course, also as a kid, walking from my house to the store usually netted enough refundable bottles to get some candy to make the trip worthwhile on a Saturday afternoon.

But, today, if you see anyone just toss something out the car window it is suddenly very offensive. Why? Well, as a nation, our culture has changed. What was, is no more. What is ... well, it seems it has always been that way. How? Propaganda, better known of as ad campaigns teaching how 'bad' it was to litter ... and, the students weren't the adults, but the kids who watched those same ads. It took a generation, but we did change.

The the most successful changes, whether 'for our own good', or not, are best done by evolution and not by revolution. We don't like to be told what to do, but if done cleverly, covertly, and gradually, with the end goal in mind, change does happen, and few even notice.

There is a realistic part of me that knows that change is inevitable, whether 'for our own good', or not. There is a troubled part of me that knows how easily we can be changed with the right campaign, even if it is something in someone else's special interest and not mine.

Wind farms? Well, I think they're beautiful, and on any given day, I'd trade them for the hog farm half a mile down the road who on more than one occasion has enhanced my family BBQ .

Kind regards ...

Please suggest book(s).

I would suggest starting with "Power Hungry: The Myths of "Green" Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future" by Robert Bryce

The lame attitude is brought in by our comforts and standards of life being relished today. Certainly the modern generations are unaware of our hardships of survival and difficulties faced by past generations.

Noise, congestion, wastes, garbage and resources abuse are evils of modern living culture.

Of course technological considerations are important in noise reductions meaning good to workmen as well as neighbours around.

Ronseto,

Funny how reasoned posts seem to go unresponded to and often "end" threads.

"beneficial " in this case is glaringly obvious, to the environment.Can you argue that a noisy jet is better for the environment that a relatively quiet wind turbine? Yet the turbine draws 1000 times the criticism. Then ask yourself why?

Clean energy is an obvious benefit - but I can see already the preloaded opposition on the topic in the authors simply asking the question. Let's not answer or consider the question, let's attack the questioner. Interesting indeed.

The point of the question is simply why we tolerate certain noise vs not tolerate others. The "good for you" should perhaps says "be of benefit to you". The questioner is not attempting to play God, I'm sure. The question seems to be answered by the apparent intolerance and overly critical nature of many people in this world.

In my point of view most of the people don't understand what is beneficial to human race and to the environment........what they care for is their daily needs.Even if it is harmful to humans and environment but give them profit and much earnings they will continue to do it.Its because human mind is corrupted by selfish behaviuor.