The downside of dependence

[JadeStonesFromSaturn]

Your source for information on nuclear energy is an overrated World of Warcraft character.

I'm thinking more Neverwinter Nights myself...

 

[TFian]

Original source for all this poppycock.
(The big version is BIG)

Er, advertisements make for compelling evidence not.

 

[TFian]

He's obviously talking about everything that hasn't been debunked yet -- the topic of the gaps, if you will. In other words, after 3 pages, he's not talking about much of anything anymore.

I am. I'm talking about appropriate technology and why it's best suited for the predicament of our time.

Appropriate technology is an ideological movement (and its manifestations) originally articulated as "intermediate technology" by the economist Dr. Ernst Friedrich "Fritz" Schumacher in his influential work, Small is Beautiful. Though the nuances of appropriate technology vary between fields and applications, it is generally recognized as encompassing technological choice and application that is small scale, labor intensive, energy efficient, environmentally sound and locally controlled.[1] Both Schumacher and many modern-day proponents of appropriate technology also emphasize the technology as people centered.[2]

 

[Joey McGee]

It wasn't a great takedown, the near slander got to me the most though.

Once again, saying something without saying anything at all. What was the slander? A specific quote? You see because the thing I noticed about JSFS's assessment was that we both used the word "verbose" to describe his imaginings. I know, I'm such a silly sod, I'm impressed with graphs and charts and studies and figures and stuff, spoiled by other people referencing their statements I suppose.

Actually Shaldrake has done a great job proving his point, and defending his theories. And calling for the burning of any book is just plain ol' uncivilized.

He's done any amazing job of proving how wrong he is, I agree. The guy wasn't really calling for the book to be burned he just meant it pissed him off because it was heresy in form. That Maddox guy was kind of a jerk but that really doesn't score Sheldrake any points he's still wrong.

 

[Joey McGee]

But isn't that all ultimately to make it so that oil is not needed anymore? Isn't that, therefore, "stopping the use of oil"?

If we invented a superior/cheaper/clean source people would stop using oil. Unless we do that, people are probably not going to stop burning it. It will be easier to do that and take other measures than to manually control the planet's behavior. It's just common sense

And could getting the ability to do that kind of cooperation lead to lasting changes to our politics and relations, so maybe we could have a sort of "world peace" and "united Earth"?

We need to solve global challenges together before we can ever get the feeling that we can solve problems together as a species. We already do but the bigger objective examples of that in history, the more people will try and live up to that direction of growth. I will bake my neighbours a pie.

You said your "descendants" would get it... which means you would not share in it either, no?

Technically it is the only "immortality" I will ever know. These people are so obsessed with their failed maths and paranoid delusions that they are voluntarily not having children because that's how strongly they feel. Try to explain that everyone can have kids and we will still balance out in population.

I bet there's some happy parents out there that are glad they aren't in that cult anymore.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Er, advertisements make for compelling evidence not.

That's not an advertisement.

Are you able to disprove any of the individual claims made in that infographic?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I am. I'm talking about appropriate technology and why it's best suited for the predicament of our time.

Wow. Looks like the same stupid hippie crap with a different name.

 

[Ladewig]

I'm talking about 1970s appropriate technology.

Here's what "appropriate" technology is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appropriate_technology

Thank you for the link.

I think it is unnecessary and misleading to call it 1970s appropriate technology because while it was conceived in the 1970s, the actual technology has advanced by leaps and bounds since then (e.g. 2011 photovoltaic panels run circles around 1970 photovoltaic panels).

As for content: yes! I do want to see almost all of those things installed in third world countries and I want to see a few of them used more frequently in first world countries.

That being said, we still have not hit peak oil and we still have a number of resources available to delay energy collapse by decades if not centuries.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I am. I'm talking about appropriate technology and why it's best suited for the predicament of our time.

Your "appropriate technology" includes 21st century computer systems.

Your post collapse society appears to be able to produce the same things our pre-collapse society does.

 

[JadeStonesFromSaturn]

What was the slander?

The definition of slander is often "a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report: a slander against his good name. ". So yes, TFian, I'd also like to know exactly in what I wrote could be constituted as "slander". I do believe everything I said was fair, and sourced.

 

[TFian]

What was the slander?

He/she made him out to be nothing more than out for your money.

A specific quote? You see because the thing I noticed about JSFS's assessment was that we both used the word "verbose" to describe his imaginings. I know, I'm such a silly sod, I'm impressed with graphs and charts and studies and figures and stuff, spoiled by other people referencing their statements I suppose.

Then you'll love this. It has equations, sources, and everything. http://www.dylan.org.uk/greer_on_collapse.pdf

He's done any amazing job of proving how wrong he is, I agree.

What has he been wrong about?

 

[Joey McGee]

He/she made him out to be nothing more than out for your money.

TFian, you are hilarious. You could only be talking about this from JadeStonesFromSaturn's post.

All in all, he seems to not only fully embrace unproven "New Age" ideas, but has tried numerous times to make a business out of them, in some form or fashion, particularly with his books. It seems when those did not do very well for him, he moved onto the "Peak Oil" scene, and has done modestly well in it.

But that doesn't really disprove anything he's said, right?

So not only is that the opposite of slander (it simply reflects the facts) they actually said that doesn't prove anything about him. Unsuccessful authors that try different things over the years and eventually hit upon some success often stay with whatever audience they have gained for as long as they can. I would too, the writing business is hard.

Then you'll love this. It has equations, sources, and everything. http://www.dylan.org.uk/greer_on_collapse.pdf

No, I hate that, look at the references section, it's all books on history and culture with a smattering of outdated scientific analyses. It's distant, vapid and strange stretches of the imagination using the worst kind of inferences. This is what he has to do as no modern analysis show the same kinds of projections, specifically the reports of the IPCC, because, *gasp* those people aren't allowed to start with a conclusion and work backwards from it.

Like all cult-like, fear-mongering futurists, they have completely ignored the modern context, modern science and modern debate, thus rendering it useless.

What has he been wrong about?

None of his tests have been replicated and his theories are incoherent magical explanations so why don't you show me where I missed the proof?

 

[TFian]

So not only is that the opposite of slander (it simply reflects the facts)

What facts does it reflect? I see only insinuations.

Unsuccessful authors that try different things over the years and eventually hit upon some success often stay with whatever audience they have gained for as long as they can. I would too, the writing business is hard.

But that assumes he's in it for profit.

No, I hate that, look at the references section, it's all books on history and culture with a smattering of outdated scientific analyses.

Well, it's an historical analysis..wouldn't it then make sense to have..well historical references? And where is the "outdated" scientific analysis?

It's distant, vapid and strange stretches of the imagination using the worst kind of inferences.

Examples?

This is what he has to do as no modern analysis show the same kinds of projections, specifically the reports of the IPCC,

What does this have to do with the IPCC or climate change at all?

because, *gasp* those people aren't allowed to start with a conclusion and work backwards from it.

He doesn't.

Like all cult-like, fear-mongering futurists, they have completely ignored the modern context, modern science and modern debate, thus rendering it useless.

None of his tests have been replicated and his theories are incoherent magical explanations so why don't you show me where I missed the proof?

Ok. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdOi3s-tBzk

 

[Joey McGee]

What facts does it reflect? I see only insinuations.

Obviously you don't agree that in the insinuations are correct but you would if you didn't have the fringe version of reality you do.

But that assumes he's in it for profit.

No it's an observation about what happened in his career. There's nothing immoral about making a profit from writing no matter what the topic, it's hard work. And the point is that not that he's in it for profit, it's that he's a woo, a tarot card reader, who would be doing something like that if he didn't luck onto success with this.

Well, it's an historical analysis..wouldn't it then make sense to have..well historical references? And where is the "outdated" scientific analysis?

Assuming he get's these vague, supposed "principles of humanity" or whatever right that lead him to make predictions about the future of earth etc, who's to say that this will happen in our current world? Past does not equal the future. The world is changing exponentially, we are adapting exponentially, if he thinks that's the full context of the situation that's laughable, and everyone is laughing.

Ok. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdOi3s-tBzk

lol

http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-09/09806guess.html#i6
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=40945

Randi gave him the Pigasus award for that, hilarious. If you want to argue it resurrect one of those old threads it will be priceless.

 

[JadeStonesFromSaturn]

What facts does it reflect? I see only insinuations.

What "insinuations" are you disputing? What didn't I back up? Are you referring to his support for a new age philosophy on reality? If so, I'm pretty sure I backed that up quite well, ya know, with an interview...

But that assumes he's in it for profit.

No, I "assume" he's writing them to make a (basic) living, not "profit". Hell, I don't think even he'd object to that "insinuation" What? Did you miss his posts where he blathers on about being unemployed (and proud of it) and living off his wife's paycheck? Presumably she eventually got uppity and told him to find some income of his own

None of these things are any less possible today than they were in the 1920s, or for that matter the 1820s. As a former househusband, I can say this on the basis of personal experience; my wife and I found that we had a better standard of living on her bookkeeper’s salary alone, with a thriving full time household economy, than we had earlier on two salaries with only the scraps of a household economy the two of us could manage after work and commuting. I came in for a certain amount of derision for making that choice, of course, though it’s only fair to say that I got off very lightly in comparison to the abuse leveled, mostly by women, at those women I knew who made a similar decision.

 

[TFian]

Obviously you don't agree that in the insinuations are correct but you would if you didn't have the fringe version of reality you do.

"Fringe" has no barring on whether it's factually accurate or not.

And the point is that not that he's in it for profit, it's that he's a woo, a tarot card reader, who would be doing something like that if he didn't luck onto success with this.

So what if he's a tarot card reader? What barring does that have on the subject matter?

Assuming he get's these vague, supposed "principles of humanity" or whatever right that lead him to make predictions about the future of earth etc, who's to say that this will happen in our current world?

What are you talking about..."principles of humanity"?

Past does not equal the future. The world is changing exponentially, we are adapting exponentially, if he thinks that's the full context of the situation that's laughable, and everyone is laughing.

Why don't you actually address some of Greer's actual arguments, and sources?

If you want to argue it resurrect one of those old threads it will be priceless.

I might just do that...

 

[Joey McGee]

"Fringe" has no barring on whether it's factually accurate or not.

Excuse me, I should have said denier.

So what if he's a tarot card reader? What barring does that have on the subject matter?

Because that stuff is proven to be woo, the Atlantis stuff he wrote about is ridiculous, the man obviously has no grip on reality. He supports Sheldrake for FSM's sake. His credibility as a science-minded person is zero. This obviously does not mean he is incorrect but that's not the point being made. If what the guy does is 95% proven woo than this is an interesting thing to know about why he has gotten this subject so horribly backwards.

What are you talking about..."principles of humanity"?

His theory of collapse is based on principles he claims to have identified. Read the final paragraph, this entire paper is an exercise in speculation and he admits it, it's worth is basically zero and is trumped by the science that has actually been done by the scientists who have devoted their lives to this subject.

Why don't you actually address some of Greer's actual arguments, and sources?

See above.

I might just do that...

Perhaps a more worthwhile endeavour would be to try and replicate that study for yourself using strict protocols and keeping your methods and data transparent. Perhaps someone will actually take you seriously.

 

[TFian]

Thank you for the link.

I think it is unnecessary and misleading to call it 1970s appropriate technology because while it was conceived in the 1970s, the actual technology has advanced by leaps and bounds since then (e.g. 2011 photovoltaic panels run circles around 1970 photovoltaic panels).

As for content: yes! I do want to see almost all of those things installed in third world countries and I want to see a few of them used more frequently in first world countries.

That being said, we still have not hit peak oil and we still have a number of resources available to delay energy collapse by decades if not centuries.

No problem..

But the point is, after the peak in oil, we won't have the energy to have any advanced technological infrastructure, and best we can do are devices that provide for human needs that require little energy and can be fashioned by local resources, thus the focus on appropriate technology. It's the best bet we have.

 

[TFian]

Your "appropriate technology" includes 21st century computer systems.

Your post collapse society appears to be able to produce the same things our pre-collapse society does.

The definition Wikipedia hosts is a bit more liberal than Greer would use, however those laptops require an industrial infrastructure that present in the nations utilizing them, since they are not home made computers...(as such a thing does not exist)

 

[theprestige]

The definition Wikipedia hosts is a bit more liberal than Greer would use, however those laptops require an industrial infrastructure that present in the nations utilizing them, since they are not home made computers...(as such a thing does not exist)

I guarantee you the first thing people will do after civilizational collapse is rebuild their industrial infrastructure.