Will the internet survive energy contraction?

[Roboramma]

And speaking of geo-engineering, it's starting to be taken seriously.

Thanks for that link, it was a good article.

 

[TFian]

Because it lacks conflict. Because it doesn't fit the outdated Ehrlich-Simon spectrum of argument.

Alright.

Whatever.

Whatever whatever! But seriously, what's up with that?

You're asking a 'what if' question? All right, then. What if you're wrong? What if you're wrong about the fates of other people?

Then they live? If say, I think my cat is going to die in ten years, but ends up living twenty years, then she lived another ten years. If they all die, fine by me. If they don't, fine by me. I care not about their wellbeing one way or another. I wouldn't try to directly kill any of them, but I certainly wouldn't help them either. I'm passively fatalistic about most things.

It will be different. But I have already described ways that the "car culture" has changed.

Well, guzzling a little less gas, and getting a little better mileage, is hardly the drastic change necessary.

TFian, would you say that Europe has a car culture? Does Japan?

No, and no.

But the desires to do particular things will persist.

So?

You should read http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2010/07/closing-circle.html

I don't think people care how they are done so much as that their doing is within their reach.

But if within their reach is out of reach, well, it's not going to happen.

What do the people of Kerala want?

I'm sorry, but you're going to have to be more specific. Kerala has well over 31 million people, they hardly are in uniform agreement on what they "want".

Although, the first Burke I watched was The Day the Universe Changed, which is also interesting. You might also like After the Warming. Ironically, it is a good example of how predictions that once seemed reasonable can be left behind by reality. (For example, look at how people in 1990 thought Japan would be running things by now.)

Will do.

Why did you not choose civil engineering?

It didn't really hold my interest as I thought it would. Also my brother is already taking it.

What did you choose instead, if I may ask?

Environmental chemistry.

You mean "wary". And speaking of geo-engineering, it's starting to be taken seriously.

That's pretty scary honestly. People like me will oppose it, by whatever means we have to. http://www.handsoffmotherearth.org/

 

[Dancing David]

I mean, if you consider that Shakespeare is human, and also dead,... well, there's a squirrel out in the road by my house that's also dead. I guess this means that squirrels are just like humans in that they're both dead, huh?

Thank you! This addresses many a bad analogy. And sounds like a great rock band. Dead Shakespeare and the Roadkill Squirells

 

[Dancing David]

Again, you're funny.

So is the pile of unfounded assertions.

 

[PixyMisa]

Then they live? If say, I think my cat is going to die in ten years, but ends up living twenty years, then she lived another ten years. If they all die, fine by me. If they don't, fine by me. I care not about their wellbeing one way or another. I wouldn't try to directly kill any of them, but I certainly wouldn't help them either. I'm passively fatalistic about most things.

Then why are you devoting so much energy to arguing that we're all doomed?

You should read http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2010/07/closing-circle.html

Why? It's the same economically illiterate nonsense he always writes.

I'm sorry, but you're going to have to be more specific. Kerala has well over 35 million people, they hardly are in uniform agreement on what they "want".

But you're perfectly willing to analyse everyone not from Kerala in exactly that way.

That's pretty scary honestly. People like me will oppose it, by whatever means we have to. http://www.handsoffmotherearth.org/

If you believe that 90% of the human race will die if we don't undertake these geo-engineering projects, what possible outcome do you project that would make it justifiable to oppose them?

 

[TFian]

Then why are you devoting so much energy to arguing that we're all doomed?

Well, I'm not sure if I'm really devoting much energy at all in this thread. I usually do it inbetween homework, watching tv, or on the phone with friends. I'm more interested in putting humans in their proper place, as Paul Kingsnorth puts it, than preaching doom.

Why? It's the same economically illiterate nonsense he always writes.

I disagree.

But you're perfectly willing to analyse everyone not from Kerala in exactly that way.

Nope.

If you believe that 90% of the human race will die if we don't undertake these geo-engineering projects, what possible outcome do you project that would make it justifiable to oppose them?

Well, there's a few problems with that question. What makes you think I think 90% of humanity will die unless we undertake these specific geo engineering projects? Why would I only take in account human welfare in the equation?

 

[TFian]

Have you examined that thought?

For instance, can you offer any examples of an animal that makes tools for making tools?

What do you mean tools for making tools? Why define intelligence by "Tools making tools", "Recursive syntax", and "The ability to think about and plan for situations removed in space and time", whatever that means. What if chimps began farming? Why not include bees, with their structured hierarchy and system of laws? There's a number of other examples to choose from. Don't think we should ignore them.

 

[PixyMisa]

Well, I'm not sure if I'm really devoting much energy at all in this thread. I usually do it inbetween homework, watching tv, or on the phone with friends. I'm more interested in putting humans in their proper place, as Paul Kingsnorth puts it, than preaching doom.

What is this "proper place"?

I disagree.

Yes, we know. You're wrong.

Nope.

That you can even talk of "putting humans in their proper place" shows that I'm right.

Well, there's a few problems with that question. What makes you think I think 90% of humanity will die unless we undertake these specific geo engineering projects?

Have you not been paying attention to what you've been posting in this thread? You've been insisting all along that a massive die-off is not merely inevitable, but actually beneficial.

Why would I only take in account human welfare in the equation?

That's what I'm asking you.

If you believe that 90% of the human race will die if we don't undertake these geo-engineering projects, what possible outcome do you project that would make it justifiable to oppose them?

 

[drkitten]

What do you mean tools for making tools?

I mean "tools for making tools."

A knife is a tool, used for cutting. A whetstone is a tool used for sharpening knives, so that they're more effective as tools. A whetstone is a tool for making tools.

Why define intelligence by "Tools making tools", "Recursive syntax", and "The ability to think about and plan for situations removed in space and time", whatever that means.

I didn't define intelligence that way. You simply asked what made human unique, and I provided those three examples. If you think you've got a better definition of intelligence, you're welcome to provide it.

But it hardly seems to be unreasonable to define "intelligence" as the ability to solve problems and to plan, and only humans have the documented ability to solve problems and to plan for situations removed in space and time from where they are right now.

For example, humans will pick up a useful looking rock with the intention of using it later. Apes will use branches as tools to collect insects, but they don't seem to collect useful-looking branches against the off-chance they'll find an appropriate termite nest later.

And, of course, only humans engage in representation art, of scenes removed from the painter (e.g. drawing a picture of something that has happened, or something that we would like to happen).

What if chimps began farming?

We'd be very surprised. We'd be equally surprised if dolphins started playing guitar. But since that's not going to happen, we won't worry about it for now.

Why not include bees, with their structured hierarchy and system of laws?

Because bees don't have a "system of laws," to begin with.

 

[PixyMisa]

What do you mean tools for making tools? Why define intelligence by "Tools making tools", "Recursive syntax", and "The ability to think about and plan for situations removed in space and time", whatever that means.

It's something most humans are capable of.

What if chimps began farming?

What if pigs implemented the OSI 7-layer protocol stack using nothing but chickens?

Why not include bees, with their structured hierarchy and system of laws?

Because they're only slightly smarter than dirt.

There's a number of other examples to choose from.

All of them wrong.

Don't think we should ignore them.

Why not?

 

[TFian]

What is this "proper place"?

I'll let Kingsnorth say it

"The civilisation we are a part of is hitting the buffers at full speed, and it is too late to stop it." Nor can we bargain with it, as "the economic system we rely upon cannot be tamed without collapsing, for it relies upon … growth in order to function". Instead of trying to reduce the impacts of our civilisation, we should "start thinking about how we are going to live through its fall, and what we can learn from its collapse … Our task is to negotiate the coming descent as best we can, whilst creating new myths which put humanity in its proper place".

Yes, we know. You're wrong.

No

That you can even talk of "putting humans in their proper place" shows that I'm right.

Hardly. The assumption was I would make claims to what everyone wanted. I don't.

Have you not been paying attention to what you've been posting in this thread? You've been insisting all along that a massive die-off is not merely inevitable, but actually beneficial.

Alright, I'll try to ask again. What makes you think I believe these specific geo engineering problems would prevent 90% of humanity dying off?

That's what I'm asking you.

Why would I? Or rather, why should I only take in account human welfare?

If you believe that 90% of the human race will die if we don't undertake these geo-engineering projects, what possible outcome do you project that would make it justifiable to oppose them?

Again, why make that assumption?

 

[TFian]

Because bees don't have a "system of laws," to begin with.

Actually they do. They even hold elections.

Martin Lindauer: Communication among social bees, Harvard University Press (Cambridge 1971); Harvard books in biology #2.

Mary R. Myerscough: Dancing for a decision: a matrix model for nest-site choice by honeybees, Proc. Royal Soc. London B 270 (2003) 577-582.

Thomas D. Seeley, P. Kirk Visscher, Kevin M. Passino: Group Decision Making in Honey Bee Swarms, American Scientist 94 (May-June 2006) 220-229.

Thomas D. Seeley & P. Kirk Visscher: Quorum sensing during nest-site selection by honey bee swarms, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 56 (2004) 594-601. http://bees.ucr.edu/reprints/bes56.pdf

 

[drkitten]

Actually they do. They even hold elections.

Don't anthropomorphize. Communications aren't laws; quorum sensing isn't an election.

 

[TFian]

Communications aren't laws

They can be. Our laws only exist within the realm of our ways of communication.

quorum sensing isn't an election.

Sure it is. Albeit less sophisticated mind you.

 

[PixyMisa]

I'll let Kingsnorth say it

"The civilisation we are a part of is hitting the buffers at full speed, and it is too late to stop it." Nor can we bargain with it, as "the economic system we rely upon cannot be tamed without collapsing, for it relies upon … growth in order to function". Instead of trying to reduce the impacts of our civilisation, we should "start thinking about how we are going to live through its fall, and what we can learn from its collapse … Our task is to negotiate the coming descent as best we can, whilst creating new myths which put humanity in its proper place".

The problem is, this is not an argument of any sort. It's just random bits of economic, scientific, and historical illiteracy glued together with logical fallacies.

No

Still wrong.

Hardly. The assumption was I would make claims to what everyone wanted. I don't.

Yes you do. You do that constantly.

Alright, I'll try to ask again. What makes you think I believe these specific geo engineering problems would prevent 90% of humanity dying off?

I didn't say that you thought that.

I said:

If you believe that 90% of the human race will die if we don't undertake these geo-engineering projects, what possible outcome do you project that would make it justifiable to oppose them?

Why would I?

That's what I'm asking you.

Again, why make that assumption?

I don't know. Why do you make that assumption?

I'll try again.

You have argued all along that a massive die-off is not only unavoidable buy necessary. Let's put the figure at 90% for the sake of argument.

We argue that geo-engineering projects can mitigate or even prevent this die-off.

You say that you will "oppose it, by whatever means we have to".

Why? What possible moral or ethical foundation can you have for this course of action?

 

[TFian]

The problem is, this is not an argument of any sort. It's just random bits of economic, scientific, and historical illiteracy glued together with logical fallacies.

Meh. The proper place for humanity is to find our place in the living world, rather than dominating it.

Still wrong.

Nuh uh!

Yes you do. You do that constantly.

Nope!

I didn't say that you thought that.

Then why are you asking me the same question, under the same mistaken premise?

I don't know. Why do you make that assumption?

What assumption?

You have argued all along that a massive die-off is not only unavoidable buy necessary. Let's put the figure at 90% for the sake of argument.

We argue that geo-engineering projects can mitigate or even prevent this die-off.

You say that you will "oppose it, by whatever means we have to".

Why? What possible moral or ethical foundation can you have for this course of action?

I don't get the point of the question. If I don't believe it'll prevent a massive die off, what's the point of the question?

 

[TFian]

Because they're only slightly smarter than dirt.

Human arrogance is amusing, to say the least.

 

[Myriad]

I'm talking about your idiotic attempt to support your claim by pointing at pathological cases such as Downs' syndrome as though that was representative of human intelligence. This is, of course, particularly idiotic because it's an epic fail, in that no animal of any sort has ever scored anywhere near Down's syndrome level on any recognized cognitive test of any type.

To be fair, I'm the one who brought up Down Syndrome -- in order to make exactly that point.

And to point out the inconsistency inherent in TFian's eager prediction of the necessity of killing the handicapped as burdensome to a future resource-starved agrarian existence, yet supporting preservation of chimps, dolphins, elephants, and other creatures whose survival would be far more burdensome to maintain in such a scenario.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[TFian]

To be fair, I'm the one who brought up Down Syndrome -- in order to make exactly that point.

And to point out the inconsistency inherent in TFian's eager prediction of the necessity of killing the handicapped as burdensome to a future resource-starved agrarian existence, yet supporting preservation of chimps, dolphins, elephants, and other creatures whose survival would be far more burdensome to maintain in such a scenario.

Respectfully,
Myriad

"Chimps, dolphins, elephants" and the like can live just fine without human support. You can't say the same with retards however.

 

[excaza]

"Chimps, dolphins, elephants" and the like can live just fine without human support.

Your logic fails. Living without human support is not a condition for intelligence.