OKAMIPERSON

You may take this is as a multi-part question if you wish; they are all in a similar vein:

• 1 What is your position on nuclear power, as a[n efficient and proven] means of combatting GCC and carbon emissions, until renewable sources can be utilized efficiently ?

• 2 What are you doing to combat the Green Party's stance on Nuclear Energy, (which amounts to fearmongering IMO), despite its low deaths/KwHr even compared to solar and wind?

• 3 What would you put forward to improve the state of nuclear power in NJ?

---

E: formatting

I would make sure that lower socioeconomic ares are not taking an unfair proportion of the pollution that would be emitted.

WADR, I have two issues/questions regarding that.

I would make sure

How would you make "sure"? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say you would "put forward some legislation toward that goal"? And even if so, what sort of legislation and ensuing enforcement mechanism would/should be used toward this goal?

that lower socioeconomic ares are not taking an unfair proportion of the pollution

What exactly is "an unfair proportion", and how would this unfairness be measured?

Thank you for the straight response, even though I think that is quite a shame.

I have some questions, and hope you or someone on the research team may respond to at least one of them.

Question in five parts (they track along a similar theme):

• 1

What do you think of circumstances (occupational fields, aspects of governance, etc.) where dehumanization is healthy and/or necessary for the maintenance of a system?

• 2

Is there any research on the effects of dehumanization on those working in certain fields where it may be necessary, e.g. those working in the Armed Services, Emergency Medical Services, Insurance, etc. ?

• 3

Every time I was put in or assumed command or management of a group of people, I encountered a "humanizing" resistance not only from my own my emotional state, but also from other actors such as Human Relations. In each case, once I was able to overcome this resistance, making decisions to the temporary detriment of at least one subordinates, the goal was met more quickly and with fewer expenditures than expected. While this is useful in meeting short-term goals, are there possible long-term negative externalities to this management style, especially if most managers do so?

• 4

What are the fundamental problems of not upholding, or denying "humanness", viz. " groups denied human nature are typically likened to inanimate objects like robots or automata (Haslam, Bain, Douge, Lee, & Bastian, 2005)", if humans ultimately are animals, and given that the mind-body dichotomy has all but vanished in the face of scientific research, we may be no different than automata? Even if intergroup aggression may increase by groups seeing one another as such, should that require states and other actors downplaying what is supported by evidence?

• 5

In what ways do you see the perception of and actions toward individuals in relation to the collective of which they may be part as valid and as invalid?

E.g. An auto insurance firm may try to take as much information from and about individuals as possible to set premiums, but if there is a lack of time, human resources, and information to do so thoroughly, may look at me as urban, young, and male- traits each shared by large collectives- and incorporate that data to make the premium for my first auto insurance policy higher than if I was rural, older, and/or female. This is done to protect the insurance pool as a whole from risks and losses, is subject to change given my driving data over time, and is largely seen as a valid exercise.

E.g. a nation-state may try take as much information from and about individuals as possible to set immigration policies, but if there is a lack of time, human resources, and information to do so thoroughly, may look at some as in terms of socioeconomic status, from regions in varying degrees of conflict, from places with certain mean IQs , health risks, violent crime rates, etc.- traits each shared by large collectives- and incorporate that data to set immigration quotas as lower for certain types of people and higher for other types. This would be done to protect the citizenry as a whole from risks and losses, would be subject to change if the data changes over time, and is largely seen as an invalid exercise. and is largely seen as a valid exercise.

---

• This is a more historical nitpick, and as such differs in theme from the previous questions:

Underneath the abstract for The Ascent of Man: Theoretical and Empirical Evidence for Blatant Dehumanization, the 13th Amendment was quoted

Representatives ... shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons...three fifths of all other Persons

Considering that Abolitionists during the time wanted to bring the number pursuant to non-free persons to be as low as possible (perhaps even 0), and slave-holders wanted the number pursuant to non-free persons to be as high as possible (perhaps even 1), do you think addition of the quote in context of the topic of study was in service of a historically accurate view?

Why do you think it is that at Charlottesville, members of UTR were arrested, when Antifa/Black Bloc/BLM members were on video instigating much of the violence?

Did any antifa members mention anything about legal 'cover' (e.g. being employees or relatives of local police chiefs and politicians)?

How close is the relationship between American Antifa groups and European ones?