Will the internet survive energy contraction?

[PixyMisa]

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

Not so much. They're all protected species.

You can't say the same with retards however.

Evidence?

 

[TFian]

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

True, if I was making that argument there. I'm not.

 

[drkitten]

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

That's right. Laws are communications, but communications aren't laws. Birdsong is also a form of communication, but not a law.

Sure it is. Albeit less sophisticated mind you.

No. Actually, that's one of the findings of the very paper you cite -- quorum sensing is not an election, because it's not sensing a consensus, but merely the presence of a sufficiently large group.

Doesn't it bother you when your own citations prove you to be wrong?

 

[TFian]

Not so much. They're all protected species.

From other humans yes. Without us they'd be just fine.

Evidence?

Uhm, are you arguing retards (usually) are not incapable of supporting themselves?

 

[excaza]

Doesn't it bother you when your own citations prove you to be wrong?

You're immune to logic when you go quote mining.

 

[JihadJane]

You're immune to logic when you go quote mining.

drkitten?

 

[TFian]

drkitten?

He/she was referring to me.

 

[excaza]

drkitten?

No, he's not quote mining.

 

[Myriad]

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

What makes you think we have that choice? That is, what makes you think that any such place -- other than the place we ourselves create by our "dominating" -- exists?

The vast majority of the species that have ever existed have "found" their "place in the living world" to be extinction. That was their reward for their supposed noble acceptance of the proper order of things. (And of course that noble acceptance is also total ********; they all tried as hard as they could to do whatever it took to survive, but most just failed.)

News flash: no creature or species has a place in the living world. That's what makes it a living world. It would prefer to kill you and grow some more bacteria in your place. Eventually it will succeed. And by "you" I mean every living thing and kind including the bacteria itself.

Do you understand that the very same drive that makes the moose fight the wolf pack in that Jack London story you linked to, will make most people fight you when you declare your opposition to measures to support their children's survival? Being on the side of "the living world" sounds all noble and cool, until you think about it and realize it makes you the mortal enemy of everyone and everything.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[TFian]

The vast majority of the species that have ever existed have "found" their "place in the living world" to be extinction.

What makes you think we won't go extinct one day?

News flash: no creature or species has a place in the living world. That's what makes it a living world.

What's your definition of the living world then?

Do you understand that the very same drive that makes the moose fight the wolf pack in that Jack London story you linked to, will make most people fight you when you declare your opposition to measures to support their children's survival?

Yeah, so?

 

[Myriad]

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

In your resource-starved agrarian future, though, chimps, dolphins, and elephants will be hunted for food, or exterminated as pests. For instance what happens when elephants go stomping through the precious farmland that people's survival is depending on? Of course, elephants could have a different value in that world: some could be trained as work animals, as they have been for millennia. In a few thousand years they might become fully domesticated. Would that be your preference?

It's probably moot in any case because no elephants would survive a collapse that kills 90% of the people. Not one. Unless actively protected by people in isolated pockets where the famine is less severe. That would be human support that would come at a cost to other humans, though. Just like human support for disabled people, which you think will be an unaffordable luxury, so never mind. Bye bye elephants.

Some dolphins might have a chance, but only if the collapse is so rapid that all means of sea gathering are suddenly and simultaneously reduced to 18th century technology levels. (Otherwise, enforcement of fishing regulations would certainly cease well before efforts to gather as much precious protein as possible.) That's exactly the kind of collapse that would doom the elephants and chimps though.

Hmm, maybe wide-scale implementation of nuclear power and some dams to keep the Atlantic current going are better alternatives than you thought.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[drkitten]

What makes you think we won't go extinct one day?

We will. But, like any other creature, we'll probably go down fighting.

And we're a lot better at this kind of fighting than other types of creature, because we can adapt the environment to ourselves much more easily than other creatures can adapt themselves to the (new) environment.

And that's one of the reasons why this energy contraction nonsense of yours is just that,.... nonsense. Because we already know how to adapt the environment to a new post-oil reality. We know, for example, how to extract oil from shale. We know, for example, how to make electricity from uranium. We know, for example, how to get uranium from seawater. We know how to roll out hectares and hectares of solar cells. And most importantly, we know how to learn new things -- so while we don't know how to generate electricity from the rotation of the planet, we have a pretty good idea of how we can figure that particular factoid out if it's necessary.

Don't confuse unwillingness to do something with incapacity to do something. We don't bother mining uranium from seawater because it costs too much... or because oil is cheap, if you want to look at it from the other end. When oil is no longer cheap, seawater uranium will be cost-effective.

At this point, humanity will have a choice. Some people will choose to mine uranium from the oceans, choose to build power plants, and choose to continue to dominate the world in a manner never before seen.

Other people will choose to follow the Grand ArchNut's advice, choose to raise goats in their back yard, and ultimately choose to be crushed to death under the treads of the farming robots that the first group builds. Or maybe starve to death within sight of the hydroponic farming towers.

 

[drkitten]

In your resource-starved agrarian future, though, chimps, dolphins, and elephants will be hunted for food, or exterminated as pests.

Again, we've done this experiment.

Agrarian humans arrive in an area, megafauna disappears. Over and over and over again in the archeological and anthropological records.

It's probably moot in any case because no elephants would survive a collapse that kills 90% of the people.

Hey, there's good eating on an elephant!

 

[TFian]

In your resource-starved agrarian future, though, chimps, dolphins, and elephants will be hunted for food,

Why would I be against hunting animals for food?

or exterminated as pests.

They could try.

some could be trained as work animals, as they have been for millennia.

Sure, what would be wrong with that?

In a few thousand years they might become fully domesticated. Would that be your preference?

I don't see the problem with that.

's probably moot in any case because no elephants would survive a collapse that kills 90% of the people.

Yes, it's sad humans will probably take a lot of mother earth with it.

Hmm, maybe wide-scale implementation of nuclear power and some dams to keep the Atlantic current going are better alternatives than you thought.

Respectfully,
Myriad

No.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It's why they aren't good energy sources.

Compared to non-renewable energy sources?

 

[TFian]

Compared to non-renewable energy sources?

Petroleum is, while it lasts and before you disrupt your climate beyond habitation.

 

[drkitten]

Why would I be against hunting animals for food?

Because it would end up exterminating the species.

Hunting for food is still one of the major pressures on chimpanzees (look up "bush meat" sometime).

They could try.

What would keep them from succeeding? As pointed out, we've done that experiment. So far, humans seem to be nearly undefeated against megafauna except when we ourselves decide to throw the game.

 

[Myriad]

What makes you think we won't go extinct one day?

What makes you think I think that?

I was just pointing out that "finding the proper place for humanity in the living world," even if the concept were coherent, would be utterly undesirable in the overwhelmingly probable case that that proper place were comparable to the proper place for trilobites.

What's your definition of the living world then?

The genetic replicators of Earth, and the geological, astronomical, aquatic, and atmospheric environment that acts upon them.

Yeah, so?

So Old Koskoosh is in the end a traitor to the very natural order the author claims is so paramount. By his passive capitulation to "the inevitable" instead of following the moose's noble example, he did a great disservice to the wolves, weakening them. Most of us will not make the mistake he made -- and that you appear determined to make.

Sometimes the moose wins. And when the moose has nuclear weapons, well then maybe nobody will win, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to side with the wolves.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Mark6]

Because it would end up exterminating the species.

Hunting for food is still one of the major pressures on chimpanzees (look up "bush meat" sometime).

What would keep them from succeeding? As pointed out, we've done that experiment. So far, humans seem to be nearly undefeated against megafauna except when we ourselves decide to throw the game.

In a world with billions of people starving, and an awful lot of modern weapons lying around, chimpanzees, elephants and dolphins -- and quite possbily all large mammals, -- will go extinct within a year. Especially elephants -- huge target, great deal of meat. Not like Africa lacks in rocket launchers and similarly suitable weapons.

 

[TFian]

In a world with billions of people starving, and an awful lot of modern weapons lying around, chimpanzees, elephants and dolphins -- and quite possbily all large mammals, -- will go extinct within a year. Especially elephants -- huge target, great deal of meat. Not like Africa lacks in rocket launchers and similarly suitable weapons.

Yup, as things get worse, the Holocene extinction will speed up.