Will the internet survive energy contraction?

[excaza]

What's the magic number for getting you to admit you're a lying bigot?

 

[TFian]

You are depressed get help.

Of course I am. What's wrong with that?

 

[TFian]

And there's something else I missed in your post: the idea that life in the wild is a life of "true freedom". That's a false dream. It's one that we can and often do realise with the help of modern civilization, but it didn't exist in a wild state.

I couldn't disagree more. Domestication is the polar opposite of freedom. It's slavery.

The very idea of freedom is probably a new idea that came about after people had the freedom to spend their lives contemplating such issues.

And that idea of freedom is slavery.

But what sort of freedom do you think can be found in a hunter-gatherer lifestyle?

By free, I mean the freedom to roam, hunt, and gather without the effects of civilization stopping you.

Freedom to starve if the rains don't come? Freedom to die of infection after a simple wound? Freedom to be infected by multiple parasites?

It'd come with a price yes. But what, you don't think people don't starve now?

Certainly not the freedom to travel.

Travel would exist, it'd just take a lot longer.

Not the freedom to learn about the great web of life on this planet, beyond a practical understanding of the species in a very specific locality, with no understanding of how they came to exist, the intricacies of their interactions, their relationship to each other and ourselves, or any understanding whatever of the great mass of life (microscopic and thus invisible) that goes unnoticed.

We'd also not be able to destroy it at the whim of our desires.

Freedom to listen to great music or be influenced by great works of art?

Why is that important?

Alas, a life in the wild is perhaps the most powerful censor, you'll have access to the music produced by a few friends and family, the art of a few generations of your ancestors at best.

Why is this a problem?

To improve the lot of yourself and others, and their understanding of the world in which they live? No, this paradise is unchanging, and thus by definition cannot be subject to such improvement. Your ideas will be forgotten, with time, particularly since the only method of maintaining them, storage in the minds of those who outlive you, is notoriously fickle.

I don't see the problem there.

What freedom, exactly, do you think can be found in the wild?

freedom to roam, hunt, and gather without the effects of civilization stopping you.

Of a world not filled with competitor groups who would literally kill you just for being alive.

And this doesn't happen now?

I mean, yes, if we could make the earth into Pandora, I'd be into it. And not just because those alien chicks were hot. But we live on this planet, and there is no wild utopia to be found here.

No utopia.

 

[Dancing David]

I think the proper place for humanity is the wilderness. One of infinite sustainability, without the drawbacks of domestication, and to be truly free.

So try it, you can all you want. It is sort of fun at times sort of not, especially since all the wilderness gets pretty cold in the winter.
Tom Brown^WP

 

[Dancing David]

Yes, very much so. I don't deny this.



Obsessed with what? I very much care about nature.

Humans are what, part of nature, do you run around killing carpenter ants when they kill a tree?

You haven't really thought about this much, you seem depressed, so you focus on humans. Well guess what, there are plenty of species that change/destroy the enviroment. Go tell them to kill themselves. Go kill cotote and red wolf, go kill all the blue green algae. Whatever.

Go out in nature, live off the land for a couple of weeks, see what it is like. See what it is like to not be sitting in your comfy room, with electricity, and running water. Try it, live it, you can, they even will allow you to homestead someplaces.

You want to pretend there was some 'pre-tribal' wonderland, go ahead fool yourself.

the real issue is that you seem depressed.

 

[Dancing David]

Band societies. Which were quite egalitarian I should add.

Your ignorance is amazing.

They were egaltarian and tribal, duh.

 

[Dancing David]

Without medication? From whom? I don't trust psychologists. They are rapists and only want to get you addicted to their substances. They have zero intention of helping you.

Bye baby, have fun in your wonderland, I will read your ignorant ravings in about a month.

 

[TFian]

Your ignorance is amazing.

They were egaltarian and tribal, duh.

Not quite, band societies are actually distinguished from tribal societies, but the distinction is mostly population base and level of complexity.

Bands are distinguished from tribes in that tribes are generally larger, consisting of many families. Tribes have more social institutions, such as a chief, big man, or elders. Tribes are also more permanent than bands; a band can cease to exist if only a small group walks out. Many tribes are sub-divided into bands. Historically, some tribes were formed from bands that came together from time to time for religious ceremonies, hunting, or warfare.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Band_societies

 

[TFian]

Bye baby, have fun in your wonderland, I will read your ignorant ravings in about a month.

Will do! Buh bye!

 

[TFian]

Humans are what, part of nature, do you run around killing carpenter ants when they kill a tree?

I don't go running around killing anything.

You haven't really thought about this much,

Thought about what much?

you seem depressed,

Sure, I'll grant you that.

so you focus on humans.

Isn't this true of all humans?

Well guess what, there are plenty of species that change/destroy the enviroment.

Not on the scale of humanity.

Go tell them to kill themselves.

I'm not telling anybody to go kill themselves. I'm not advocating suicide.

Go kill cotote and red wolf, go kill all the blue green algae. Whatever.

I don't kill anything though.

Go out in nature, live off the land for a couple of weeks, see what it is like. See what it is like to not be sitting in your comfy room, with electricity, and running water. Try it, live it, you can, they even will allow you to homestead someplaces.

I would very much like to.

You want to pretend there was some 'pre-tribal' wonderland, go ahead fool yourself.

No wonder land, no utopia. I'm aware of how brutal it was.

the real issue is that you seem depressed.

Completely unrelated.

 

[TFian]

A much better, simpler time

It was certainly less stressful.

 

[Roboramma]

Mother Earth would survive just fine without a few of her parts, especially the more rebellious and destructive parts, like humans.

But that isn't what I asked you. I asked why you care about nature as a whole, while you don't care about the parts that make it up.

It's not necessarily true that the value in a thing is also there in it's constituent parts: the value in me doesn't exist in my atoms, it exists in the way that they are put together. So, it's certainly possible that your position is a sensible one.

That said, in this case, I don't see what particular property of "mother earth" you find to be of value. I can see plenty of things about living things, about particular humans or particular dogs that I find to be meaningful, and for those reasons I value them. But if you don't value those things, then what is it about "mother earth" that's valuable or meaningful?

 

[Roboramma]

I couldn't disagree more. Domestication is the polar opposite of freedom. It's slavery.

Now you're worried about the enslavement of rice?
You were talking about the freedom of the humans living in the wild. And I am pointing out that they are much less free than humans living in a modern first world country.
What does the lot of rice or pigs have to do with that? It's certainly true that that is another topic that you might find to be of meaning, and by all means discuss it, but it has nothing to do with whether wild humans are living in a more free state than non wild humans.

And that idea of freedom is slavery.

Which idea of freedom? Even your idea of freedom had to wait for civilization to be thought of.

By free, I mean the freedom to roam, hunt, and gather without the effects of civilization stopping you.

That's circular. Why do you only find the effects of civilization impeding freedom to be meaningful, but not, for instance, the actions of people of a neighboring band?
Both have the effect of impeding your freedom to roam, hunt, and gather.

It'd come with a price yes. But what, you don't think people don't starve now?

On a per capita basis? Much less.

Travel would exist, it'd just take a lot longer.

No, you'd be killed by your neighbors if you tried to cross their land.

We'd also not be able to destroy it at the whim of our desires.

Actually, we would. Look at what native australians did to their environment with the use of nothing more high tech than fire.

Why is that important?

Because art is of value?

Why is this a problem?

If you don't have a problem with censorship, that's fine. I do. And I find that it is something that impinges upon freedom.
Perhaps you don't agree that this is like censorship. That's fine, it's a weak analogy. But nevertheless, the effect is the same: you don't have access to ideas. And personally, I think ideas are of tremendous value. I think intellectual freedom is the most important type, and it's something that we expand every time a new book is written, a new thought is thought, a new thing about nature is uncovered or explained.

I don't see the problem there.

That's fine: you don't want to improve the human condition. I do. I doubt I'll be able to do much in my life, but I am still happy that it's possible, and that many many people do enjoy the freedom to do just that.

freedom to roam, hunt, and gather without the effects of civilization stopping you.

Again, why do only the effects of civilization matter when it comes to things that impede your freedom?

And this doesn't happen now?

Not to anywhere near the extent to which it happened in hunter-gatherer societies.

 

[TFian]

But that isn't what I asked you. I asked why you care about nature as a whole, while you don't care about the parts that make it up.

I don't think you understand where I'm coming from. I am not concerned about any singular component of nature, yes, but I am concerned about the components as a whole, tallied up. The system can go on easily with some exceptions if one the parts were eliminated. After all, if you were to go outside, find a random person, and shoot them in the head, it's very unlikely the city you live in would collapse afterwards. The same is true of our ecosystem. That's why I don't care about humans singularly, or the Moa singularly, or the blue whale singularly. I do care about the components altogether though, but not the singular parts.

It's not necessarily true that the value in a thing is also there in it's constituent parts: the value in me doesn't exist in my atoms, it exists in the way that they are put together. So, it's certainly possible that your position is a sensible one.

Yes. You can probably get along without one of your kidneys (assuming you currently have two), but you can't live without your heart, lungs, and liver all removed at once I'd wager.

That said, in this case, I don't see what particular property of "mother earth" you find to be of value.

I find value in the parts that make up mother earth when they are combined as a whole, the individual parts are meaningless. Think of it like a society. The individual is meaningless, but the collective as a whole is very valuable.

But if you don't value those things, then what is it about "mother earth" that's valuable or meaningful?

It's the collective that makes up Mother Earth that's valuable. The dogs, cats, lizards, elephants, boars, insects, flora, etc. All combined, they make up value, individually, they are nothing.

I hope I explained it better

 

[TFian]

Somewhat on topic

What's the carbon footprint of ... email?

The sending, sorting and filtering of spam email alone accounts for 33bn units of electricity each year

The carbon footprint of spam:
0.3g CO2e: A spam email
4g CO2e: A proper email
50g CO2e: An email with long and tiresome attachment

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/green-living-blog/2010/oct/21/carbon-footprint-email

 

[Roboramma]

I don't think you understand where I'm coming from. I am not concerned about any singular component of nature, yes, but I am concerned about the components as a whole, tallied up.

Yes, you've said so several times, I'm asking you why you care about the whole.

 

[TFian]

Yes, you've said so several times, I'm asking you why you care about the whole.

Sure, I'll tackle this a bit before I head to bed.

So, why do I care about the whole, rather than the constituent parts? I think the Earth is a super organism, not just a life support system, but the inner workers of a being, as outlined by James Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis. So, I care about the being that is Mother Earth, rather than individual constituent parts, which it can do without.

 

[Roboramma]

Sure, I'll tackle this a bit before I head to bed.

So, why do I care about the whole, rather than the constituent parts? I think the Earth is a super organism, not just a life support system, but the inner workers of a being, as outlined by James Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis. So, I care about the being that is Mother Earth, rather than individual constituent parts, which it can do without.

Two issues: one, I still don't feel you've answered my question. Basically you're saying that you care about "gaia" because it's a being, but you don't care about other beings. You haven't explained any particular properties of gaia that give it value.

But let's pass over that for now. Here's the other problem: Lovelock was wrong.

The very idea of gaia is in conflict with basic evolutionary biology: there's simply no mechanism for the earth's ecosystems to merge and become a "being" in the sense that anyone means. Yes, it's true that some species take advantage of the byproducts of others, and it's even true that the more species there are in an ecosystem the more efficient it becomes (at turning sunlight, water, and CO₂ into living tissue), but that is simply an interconnected system, not a living organism.

 

[TFian]

Two issues: one, I still don't feel you've answered my question. Basically you're saying that you care about "gaia" because it's a being, but you don't care about other beings. You haven't explained any particular properties of gaia that give it value.

But let's pass over that for now. Here's the other problem: Lovelock was wrong.

The very idea of gaia is in conflict with basic evolutionary biology: there's simply no mechanism for the earth's ecosystems to merge and become a "being" in the sense that anyone means. Yes, it's true that some species take advantage of the byproducts of others, and it's even true that the more species there are in an ecosystem the more efficient it becomes (at turning sunlight, water, and CO₂ into living tissue), but that is simply an interconnected system, not a living organism.

First, how do you feel I haven't answered your question? I know you said "pass", but I want to know. Explain and I will to the best of my abilities try to answer.

Second, are you familiar with Lovelock's work? Just curious.

 

[Roboramma]

First, how do you feel I haven't answered your question? I know you said "pass", but I want to know. Explain and I will to the best of my abilities try to answer.

Sure, I just figured it might start getting too philosophical. My question is "aspect of nature do you find valuable?". To make myself clear, I can look at a human and see value in its ability to experience and interact with the world: more specifically, I find my own experiences to be of value, and so when I look at others having similar experiences I consider that to have value as well. I can see that there is a similarity in the experiences of many forms of animal life as well, and so I attribute similar value to them.

I also attribute value to certain parts of nature not intrinsically but because of my own experiences of it: the beauty of a forest, for instance.

So I'm wondering if you have some similar viewpoint, of if you simply value nature as a whole for a vague "because it's valuable" reason. The latter, to be honest, may be fair enough: eventually you simply have to stop asking why and admit that some things are fundamental. But in this case it's a viewpoint that I have a hard time accepting, because it seems so arbitrary.

Second, are you familiar with Lovelock's work? Just curious.

I read his book, but it was a long time ago.