No announcement yet.

Do you think the Pandemic etc. could lead to the US breaking into 6 or so countries?

This topic is closed.
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    To make one final post on my chemical analogy: Any chemical reaction is theoretically reversible. However, generally, reversible reactions and irreversible reactions are considered. An irreversible reaction would be like the combustion of a fossil fuel. A reversible reaction would be something that does in fact go in both directions, but depending on conditions such as temperature, pressure, other reactants ,etc. the net direction may change - like the absorption/use of glucose in the body. In my view we are s polarized that we are seeing more and more "irreversible reactions". A rightist President followed by a leftist followed by a rightest. In the good old days we had centrists - the choices between Presidents/Parties/Policies were not that huge - they were "reversible reactions". Another analogy I might make is some day the Mississippi River will find its natural course - the changes will be catastrophic - the prevention of change is making that inevitable.

    Link to Wikipedia article on Le Chatelier's Principle - which involves reversible reactions and how they react to a change in the environment/cause a change in the environment.


    Le Chatelier's principle (pronounced UK: /lə ʃˈtɛljeɪ/ or US: /ˈʃɑːtəljeɪ/), also called Chatelier's principle or "The Equilibrium Law", is a principle of chemistry used to predict the effect of a change in conditions on chemical equilibria. The principle is named after French chemist Henry Louis Le Chatelier, and sometimes also credited to Karl Ferdinand Braun, who discovered it independently. It can be stated as:
    When any system at equilibrium for a long period of time is subjected to a change in concentration, temperature, volume, or pressure, (1) the system changes to a new equilibrium, and (2) this change partly counteracts the applied change.

    It is common to treat the principle as a more general observation of systems,[1] such as
    When a settled system is disturbed, it will adjust to diminish the change that has been made to it.

    or, "roughly stated",[1]
    Any change in status quo prompts an opposing reaction in the responding system.

    ================================================== =============

    link to article on irreversible versus reversible reactions

    Last edited by lakechampainer; 17 Jul 20, 07:30.


    • #32
      I would say that 20 to 70 years ago the distribution of political opinions in the US was very different - in my view, very broadly generalizing:

      1. More people were grouped in the center. (Recognizing the center moves - this is more saying people's opinions tend to be relatively similar)

      2. There were not as many people near the extreme positions

      3. People now don't/don't feel they can meaningfully participate in civic affairs as much as they then - in large part I think because Tip O'Neill's famous line - "All politics is local" was more correct in the past. People felt in the past, correctly I think, that they could influence events locally, like a school board. Now they think, correctly I think, that they can't really influence things, as everything is national.

      4. Then and now and always in my view people on the extreme always have an outsize effect on bringing about change - but before and in more stable situations than now these changes had the result of "moving the center", not jumping from one set of situations to another - e.g. a rightist President to a leftist President to a rightist President to an old leftist President?

      The example I give, but can't find a good image I can copy, is the seesaw problem we all did in school - the balancing torques problem - the 50 pound child 6 feet from the pivot point and the 100 pound child 3 feet from the pivot balance, as they create the same torque or effect.

      Below are Wikipedia pictures on unimodal and bimodal distributions. Again, generalizing, better to have a unimodal distribution of political views, than bimodal or multimodal etc. as it easier to effect change, as it can happen in small steps, and people will be more accepting of change.

      For bimodal, for example, think of people who watch Fox News an hour a day and people who MSNBC an hour a day. Not to much room for common ground.


      Latest Topics