DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Renewable Revolution
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Catastrophic Climate Change
*****************************************************
#Post#: 3455--------------------------------------------------
Re: Disagreements on the Doomstead Diner
By: AGelbert Date: July 13, 2015, 2:51 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
RE, if you have anything to say, you had better apologize to me
first for claiming my "arguments don't hold water". Otherwise, I
hope God teaches you to pray this prayer before you die. You
have never learned the meaning of a life well lived as long as
you celebrate having a large ego.
[quote][font=times new roman] Proverbs 30:7-9
7 O God, I beg two favors from you;
let me have them before I die.
8 First, help me never to tell a lie.
Second, give me neither poverty nor riches!
Give me just enough to satisfy my needs.
9 For if I grow rich, I may deny you and say, “Who is the Lord?”
And if I am too poor, I may steal and thus insult God’s holy
name.
[/font][/quote]
[quote]What happens when we get a raise? Say you got a 3% raise
this year. For most people, this is what happens: your spending
goes up by 3%, or more. We get more; we think we can keep more.
The Bible says that there's a big problem with this. It makes us
less dependent on God. But there's another problem. God doesn't
give us more so that we can be a blessing to ourselves. God
gives us more so we can use it for others. We're supposed to use
it to help others, not just to help ourselves.
Then Jesus talks about how God will take care of us. We won't
read it, but it's a good passage to bookmark for when you're
feeling financially stressed. Basically, Jesus says that we
don't have to be greedy, or worry about money, because God will
look after us. He says in verse 30:
[font=times new roman] "These things dominate the thoughts of
most people (a very true statement), but your Father already
knows your needs. He will give you all you need from day to day
if you make the Kingdom of God your primary concern."[/font]
We don't have to get stressed about money, about having enough,
because God always looks after his kids. Jesus says, "So don't
be afraid, little flock. For it gives your Father great
happiness to give you the Kingdom" (Luke 12:32). It's almost
like Jesus is saying, "What more do you need? "Then Jesus says
the most amazing, disturbing thing. You'll probably do what I
did. I looked at the footnotes, in the Greek, to see if there
was something that said, "Just kidding, guys." I looked for the
loophole. It seems like one of those hyperboles, an
exaggeration, something that he couldn't possibly mean for us to
take seriously. Jesus says in verse 33 says,
[font=times new roman] "Sell what you have and give to those in
need." [/font]
He doesn't say sell all that we have. But he does say that we
should get rid of some of our stuff so that we can help others.
I think Jesus really means this. We have way too much stuff. We
even curse it sometimes. We run out of space to store it all. We
rent self-storage lockers to pack it all away. We pay monthly
fees to store stuff away that we don't even use. When we clean
our houses, we mutter about all the stuff we have to move to
dust - stuff we don't even like. We have so many clothes that
there are some things we haven't worn in ages, and not because
it doesn't fit. Jesus says, get rid of it. Take that second or
third computer and give it to someone who could use it. Donate
it to a computer lab. Get rid of your stuff, and give it to
someone who could use it. Cash in some of your investments and
give it to somebody who's struggling financially.
It's hard to know who benefits most when we do this. Jesus
mentioned that we'll be helping those in need if we do this. But
you get the impression that he was more focused on what it would
do for us. It makes us less encumbered by all our possessions,
less attached to physical stuff. Jesus said in verses 33-34:
[font=times new roman]
This will store up treasure for you in heaven! And the purses of
heaven have no holes in them. Your treasure will be safe-no
thief can steal it and no moth can destroy it. Wherever your
treasure is, there your heart and thoughts will also be.[/font]
Following his instructions may help the poor. It may give some
needed resources to charities and people who really need it. But
it also does something for us. It frees us from the encumbrances
of possessions. It makes us more dependent on God. Here's the
point. Treasures aren't just to be stored up for our own
pleasure.
Whenever God gives us more than we need to get by - and that's
almost all of us - we need to realize that we're facing a
danger. The danger is that we'll get greedy and want more
without even knowing it, and we'll end up enslaved to the stuff
rather than using it to benefit others. The goal, I think, isn't
for us to feel guilty, or to skip going out for lunch today.
The goal, though, is to aim for a modest lifestyle that benefits
others. The goal is to live in such a way that it wouldn't be
the worst thing in the world to lose everything we own, because
what really matters can never be taken away.
Here's what I didn't know. I didn't know that I have enough. I'm
rich. Almost all of us are. We live in luxury, compared to
history, compared to most of the world. We all make way more
than we really deserve. We may not think so, because we compare
it to others we know, or what's on TV. Even the poorest of us
has resources that many could only dream of. What we have is
more than enough. 98% of us have more than we need just to get
by. I didn't know that there's a danger in having more than
enough. This is the goal of pretty well everyone in North
America: to have more than we need to get by. I didn't know that
there's such a danger in having so much.
The greatest indication of that is that we don't know how much
we have. Despite our riches, most of us feel financially
strapped. We're making more money that ever before, but we don't
know it. Remember the definition of greed? It's wanting more of
what I already have enough of. I didn't know that I'm probably
living a life of greed, without even being aware. I also didn't
know that the excess was given for me to share. I didn't know,
but I do now.[/quote]
HTML http://dashhouse.com/sermons/2003/1/5/i-didnt-know-proverbs-307-9-luke-1213-34.html
#Post#: 3749--------------------------------------------------
Re: You will have to pick a side. There is no longer Room for Pr
ocrastination
By: guest17 Date: September 12, 2015, 9:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I got banned over at DD.
I'm picking up where we left off over there, replying to
agelbert.
Much of this is directed to Ashvin, and of course Ashvin can
speak for himself. I am interjecting some comments of my own,
anyway. Agelbert makes reference to me repeatedly, so I wish to
speak to those points.
[quote author=agelbert link=topic=811.msg85178#msg85178
date=1442091032]
Do you see, Ashvin, that the logic you use to assert that Alan's
"point" about "exaggerating extreme outcomes" (that's the proper
phrase, old chum - yeah it does equal yelling - that's what you
do when your species is genuinely threatened) is part of YOUR
confirmation bias?
[/quote]
Interesting idea. Why don't you argue for it? CONVINCE us.
[quote author=agelbert link=topic=811.msg85178#msg85178
date=1442091032]
You consistently ignore the reality of the tsunami of propaganda
out there that tells people everything is hunky dory. A long
time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, Ashvin wrote an excellent
article about how FUBAR things were/are. I do believe Ashvin
wrote that article out of a sense of frustration about how
people REFUSED to see how they were being USED to further a
morally depraved status quo fostered by TPTB. He was, and is,
right.
THAT morally depraved status quo didn't just happen. Social
Darwinism was, and is at the heart of it, is it not? Alan
doesn't go for that. Alan doesn't DO "judgements" as to ethical
or not. Alan, unfortunately supported by GO, prefers to avoid
admitting the mere possibility that the ROOT of our FUBAR
situation is moral depravity.
[/quote]
Why do you say that, AG? I believe that the root of our
situation (leaving aside FUBAR for a moment) is spiritual in
nature, including moral depravity, and not material. I said that
up thread at DD. Did you see that post of mine? I was replying
to someone else, can't remember who.
[quote author=agelbert link=topic=811.msg85178#msg85178
date=1442091032]
Perhaps GO hasn't seen that. I hope GO gets that now. Alan
refuses to think things are FUBAR. He says that is "exaggerating
extreme outcomes".
[/quote]
Ah, the FUBAR issue. Yes, I think that is an exaggeration. FUBAR
= (literally) Fucked Up BEYOND ALL REPAIR. And I don't believe
that is the case. I don't believe that YOU believe that is the
case either, AG. If you believed that, then you would not bother
trying at all. No one would. If it truly is Beyond All Repair,
then action is futile.
Taking a step back from literal: I don't believe things are as
bad as you think, true. It is tough to discuss this because at
the end of the day we all have to size things up as best we can
and make a GUESS (and it is a GUESS) as to likely outcomes,
general probabilities, and so on. My sizing up happens to land
in a different place than yours.
[quote author=agelbert link=topic=811.msg85178#msg85178
date=1442091032]
Of course your piece about our FUBAR society did not define
FUBAR effects in the biosphere. It was an article on economics.
But really, do you think you can ignore the cause and effect
chain that leads from moral depravity to extreme environmental
degradation? You can't. You can, and probably will ::), argue
things haven't gotten that bad yet, and Alan is merely warning
against "irrational and sensationalist hyperbole".
No, he isn't doing that. He is bathing in that river in Egypt.
WHY? Because he has an a priori (faulty) logical premise, as
does GO, that there is no massive and powerful organized element
out there with the Means, Motive and Opportunity to put people
to sleep about how FUBAR things are. So do you. That's called
endowment bias.
[/quote]
Interesting point about endowment bias. You will have to speak
in more detail to convince me of the relevance of that.
As for the "powerful organized element" seeking to put people to
sleep about the gravity of things: sounds plausible. Here again,
though, you will have to speak in more detail and convince me,
not just assert the thing. And btw you accuse me of having a
"faulty logical premise" that such as thing does not exist,
whereas the truth is that I have no such premise. I am open to
the idea. You've got to persuade me, though, not merely assert
and make accusations.
[quote author=agelbert link=topic=811.msg85178#msg85178
date=1442091032]
The bottom line in the "point" Alan allegedly has is that near
term human extinction (N.T.H.E.) is a LOW to NO probability
event. This is the way you and GO see it too, is it not?
If you or Alan or GO could be convinced that N.T.H.E. is NOT a
LOW to NO probability event, I think your outlook on the
discourse here would change.
[/quote]
Certainly would. Go ahead, convince us.
[quote author=agelbert link=topic=811.msg85178#msg85178
date=1442091032]
UB, our resident psychiatrist, can tell us HOW our PERCEPTION of
what those probabilities are TILTS our world view and endowment
bias.
[/quote]
Psychiatrist!? I would be amazed if he made it through Jr high
school.
[quote author=agelbert link=topic=811.msg85178#msg85178
date=1442091032]
FURTHERMORE, RE and Surly, experts in the propaganda techniques
they fight daily, can tell us how WELL FUNDED, REPETITIVE,
CREDIBLE SOUNDING propaganda hitting people from all sides is
INSTRUMENTAL in distorting the probability of this, that or the
other event occurring.
[/quote]
From what I can see, they are not experts in anything, and are
in fact rather lame victims of media programming and
brainwashing, while fancying themselves as having special
insight into such things.
[quote author=agelbert link=topic=811.msg85178#msg85178
date=1442091032]
I think this is ALL ABOUT endowment bias
[/quote]
FINE. THEN CONVINCE US.
[quote author=agelbert link=topic=811.msg85178#msg85178
date=1442091032]
which is intimately connected to world view, which is
influenced by a tsunami of propaganda lies about how hunky dory
things are, which leads people to descend into denial of the
actual probability of N.T.H.E., which leads them descend into
derision and mockery of those seeking to warn Homo Saps, which
serves the purpose of the psychos that created (and continue to
exacerbate) the present mess.
[/quote]
The point about "derision and mockery" is presumably directed at
me. Go ahead and tell me SPECIFICALLY where I was derisive and
mocking inappropriately, toward things that did not deserve to
be derided and mocked. Please be SPECIFIC, either quoting my
words and/or providing a specific link to my words.
[quote author=agelbert link=topic=811.msg85178#msg85178
date=1442091032]
It is expected that, if you believe a threat is over
represented, you believe the person doing so is a fool or has
some agenda. That's Alan's accusation of RE. I claim that Alan
is being duped by TPTB.
[/quote]
No, you're wrong with respect to my critique of RE. My critique
of RE is spot on. He trawls the news sites looking for
confirmation of his collapse of industrial civilization bias --
and of course he finds it in abundance. News sites are MADE for
fools like him. They make it EASY to do what he does. I could
say much more but I will leave it at that for now.
[quote author=agelbert link=topic=811.msg85178#msg85178
date=1442091032]
You, GO, Alan and anyone else duped by TPTB is a tool used to
DELAY the realization that drastic measures are required to
LOWER the present HIGH probability of N.T.H.E.
[/quote]
All right, all right, we hear you. But you have to convince, not
just assert.
[quote author=agelbert link=topic=811.msg85178#msg85178
date=1442091032]
MY premise, the one the Ashvin of the FUBAR article partially
shared, is that the NUMBER assigning N.T.H.E. to a low or NO
probability status is a function of a massive propaganda effort.
And THAT, is why Alan is hypocritical in the extreme to accuse
RE of hyperbole and sensationalism while simultaneously IGNORING
the mens rea 'go back to sleep' propaganda of TPTB.
[/quote]
You're totally wrong about this. RE's addiction to anecdotal
news stories, using them to justify his doomeristic outlook, is
laughable and pathetic, for reasons I made clear up thread
(original DD thread). News stories are TERRIBLY misleading, as
far as the big and long-term picture goes. You cannot possibly
form an accurate picture of megatrends in the world from daily
news stories, in isolation. You might be able to form an
accurate picture from an analysis of news stories over many
years or decades, but that is not what RE does. You know what he
does.
But maybe you are just saying that it does not matter if RE's
news story fetish represents a valid way of learning about
important long term social processes. Maybe you are saying that,
if what RE is doing comports with your bias having to do with
NTHE probability and so on, then it is OK. Is THAT what you are
saying?
Alan
#Post#: 3750--------------------------------------------------
Re: You will have to pick a side. There is no longer Room for Pr
ocrastination
By: guest17 Date: September 12, 2015, 10:11 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Oh btw AG: in a subsequent post at DD you wrote the text below,
and I just want to say... BRAVO! DOUBLE BRAVO! Very well said
and I could not agree more. And fwiw I have spent a LOT of time
arguing this very point, at the hubbertsarms forum (circa
2009-10) and elsewhere. I am UTTERLY FED UP with the
"overpopulation" bull****, which is misleading in the extreme,
and worse. It is mean and cruel and anti-human, and MISSES (as
you so well point out) the real locus of the problem, which is
OVERCONSUMPTION BY THE AFFLUENT. Perhaps you caught in one of my
posts up thread at DD my mention of Trainer's book "Abandon
Affluence". The title says it all. I read it many years a go,
and it had deep impact on me. He was right then (circa 1983),
and he is right now. Excessive affluence is impelling us all
toward environmental disasters.
Anyway, kudos for a very good passage and takedown of monsta's
foolish post.
[quote][size=11pt]
HTML http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/index.php/topic,811.msg85182.html#msg85182
agelbert wrote:
I go blue in the face every time Monsta brings up his "we are
all to blame because of population overshoot" business. But at
least he recognizes that there IS an existential threat, even if
he has difficulties reading pie charts.
Anyone can see that if you CULL 80% of human population (ALL the
poor and MOST of the middle class), you will not DENT the level
of pollution being generated by the rest of Homo Sapdom. Monsta
doesn't get that. He really thinks that all those dead people
will convince the surviving predators to be nice to the
environment.
And there is that Monsta's wet depopulation dream will solve our
environmental problems, not simply because the polluting
industry facts state otherwise, but because the morally
challenged Predators 'R' US world view of the top 20% is at the
ROOT of the degradation of democracy and the biosphere.
But Monsta will not go there. And he will not go there because,
if he did, the whole population overshoot thing would be exposed
for the scapegoating, blame the victim, ethics challenged
rhetoric that it is.
NO, Monsta, all those high resource users will NOT use less
resources because 80% of the population died.
THAT is because THAT 80% DOES NOT participate significantly in
the MARKET (see GDP fun and games) for all that industrial STUFF
we produce in the piggy counties. the FACTORIES will NOT slow
down to a sustainable biosphere 'roar' just because the bottom
80% get offed, as you seem to believe.
[/quote]
#Post#: 3752--------------------------------------------------
Re: You will have to pick a side. There is no longer Room for Pr
ocrastination
By: AGelbert Date: September 13, 2015, 4:11 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]I got banned over at DD.
I'm picking up where we left off over there, replying to
agelbert.
Much of this is directed to Ashvin, and of course Ashvin can
speak for himself. I am interjecting some comments of my own,
anyway. Agelbert makes reference to me repeatedly, so I wish to
speak to those points.
Quote from: agelbert on September 12, 2015, 04:50:32 pm
Do you see, Ashvin, that the logic you use to assert that Alan's
"point" about "exaggerating extreme outcomes" (that's the proper
phrase, old chum - yeah it does equal yelling - that's what you
do when your species is genuinely threatened) is part of YOUR
confirmation bias?
Interesting idea. Why don't you argue for it? CONVINCE us.
Quote from: agelbert on September 12, 2015, 04:50:32 pm
You consistently ignore the reality of the tsunami of propaganda
out there that tells people everything is hunky dory. A long
time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, Ashvin wrote an excellent
article about how FUBAR things were/are. I do believe Ashvin
wrote that article out of a sense of frustration about how
people REFUSED to see how they were being USED to further a
morally depraved status quo fostered by TPTB. He was, and is,
right.
THAT morally depraved status quo didn't just happen. Social
Darwinism was, and is at the heart of it, is it not? Alan
doesn't go for that. Alan doesn't DO "judgements" as to ethical
or not. Alan, unfortunately supported by GO, prefers to avoid
admitting the mere possibility that the ROOT of our FUBAR
situation is moral depravity.
Why do you say that, AG? I believe that the root of our
situation (leaving aside FUBAR for a moment) is spiritual in
nature, including moral depravity, and not material. I said that
up thread at DD. Did you see that post of mine? I was replying
to someone else, can't remember who.
Quote from: agelbert on September 12, 2015, 04:50:32 pm
Perhaps GO hasn't seen that. I hope GO gets that now. Alan
refuses to think things are FUBAR. He says that is "exaggerating
extreme outcomes".
Ah, the FUBAR issue. Yes, I think that is an exaggeration. FUBAR
= (literally) ****ed Up BEYOND ALL REPAIR. And I don't believe
that is the case. I don't believe that YOU believe that is the
case either, AG. If you believed that, then you would not bother
trying at all. No one would. If it truly is Beyond All Repair,
then action is futile.
Taking a step back from literal: I don't believe things are as
bad as you think, true. It is tough to discuss this because at
the end of the day we all have to size things up as best we can
and make a GUESS (and it is a GUESS) as to likely outcomes,
general probabilities, and so on. My sizing up happens to land
in a different place than yours.
Quote from: agelbert on September 12, 2015, 04:50:32 pm
Of course your piece about our FUBAR society did not define
FUBAR effects in the biosphere. It was an article on economics.
But really, do you think you can ignore the cause and effect
chain that leads from moral depravity to extreme environmental
degradation? You can't. You can, and probably will ::), argue
things haven't gotten that bad yet, and Alan is merely warning
against "irrational and sensationalist hyperbole".
No, he isn't doing that. He is bathing in that river in Egypt.
WHY? Because he has an a priori (faulty) logical premise, as
does GO, that there is no massive and powerful organized element
out there with the Means, Motive and Opportunity to put people
to sleep about how FUBAR things are. So do you. That's called
endowment bias.
Interesting point about endowment bias. You will have to speak
in more detail to convince me of the relevance of that.
As for the "powerful organized element" seeking to put people to
sleep about the gravity of things: sounds plausible. Here again,
though, you will have to speak in more detail and convince me,
not just assert the thing. And btw you accuse me of having a
"faulty logical premise" that such as thing does not exist,
whereas the truth is that I have no such premise. I am open to
the idea. You've got to persuade me, though, not merely assert
and make accusations.
Quote from: agelbert on September 12, 2015, 04:50:32 pm
The bottom line in the "point" Alan allegedly has is that near
term human extinction (N.T.H.E.) is a LOW to NO probability
event. This is the way you and GO see it too, is it not?
If you or Alan or GO could be convinced that N.T.H.E. is NOT a
LOW to NO probability event, I think your outlook on the
discourse here would change.
Certainly would. Go ahead, convince us.
Quote from: agelbert on September 12, 2015, 04:50:32 pm
UB, our resident psychiatrist, can tell us HOW our PERCEPTION of
what those probabilities are TILTS our world view and endowment
bias.
Psychiatrist!? I would be amazed if he made it through Jr high
school.
Quote from: agelbert on September 12, 2015, 04:50:32 pm
FURTHERMORE, RE and Surly, experts in the propaganda techniques
they fight daily, can tell us how WELL FUNDED, REPETITIVE,
CREDIBLE SOUNDING propaganda hitting people from all sides is
INSTRUMENTAL in distorting the probability of this, that or the
other event occurring.
From what I can see, they are not experts in anything, and are
in fact rather lame victims of media programming and
brainwashing, while fancying themselves as having special
insight into such things.
Quote from: agelbert on September 12, 2015, 04:50:32 pm
I think this is ALL ABOUT endowment bias
FINE. THEN CONVINCE US.
Quote from: agelbert on September 12, 2015, 04:50:32 pm
which is intimately connected to world view, which is influenced
by a tsunami of propaganda lies about how hunky dory things are,
which leads people to descend into denial of the actual
probability of N.T.H.E., which leads them descend into derision
and mockery of those seeking to warn Homo Saps, which serves the
purpose of the psychos that created (and continue to exacerbate)
the present mess.
The point about "derision and mockery" is presumably directed at
me. Go ahead and tell me SPECIFICALLY where I was derisive and
mocking inappropriately, toward things that did not deserve to
be derided and mocked. Please be SPECIFIC, either quoting my
words and/or providing a specific link to my words.
Quote from: agelbert on September 12, 2015, 04:50:32 pm
It is expected that, if you believe a threat is over
represented, you believe the person doing so is a fool or has
some agenda. That's Alan's accusation of RE. I claim that Alan
is being duped by TPTB.
No, you're wrong with respect to my critique of RE. My critique
of RE is spot on. He trawls the news sites looking for
confirmation of his collapse of industrial civilization bias --
and of course he finds it in abundance. News sites are MADE for
fools like him. They make it EASY to do what he does. I could
say much more but I will leave it at that for now.
Quote from: agelbert on September 12, 2015, 04:50:32 pm
You, GO, Alan and anyone else duped by TPTB is a tool used to
DELAY the realization that drastic measures are required to
LOWER the present HIGH probability of N.T.H.E.
All right, all right, we hear you. But you have to convince, not
just assert.
Quote from: agelbert on September 12, 2015, 04:50:32 pm
MY premise, the one the Ashvin of the FUBAR article partially
shared, is that the NUMBER assigning N.T.H.E. to a low or NO
probability status is a function of a massive propaganda effort.
And THAT, is why Alan is hypocritical in the extreme to accuse
RE of hyperbole and sensationalism while simultaneously IGNORING
the mens rea 'go back to sleep' propaganda of TPTB.
You're totally wrong about this. RE's addiction to anecdotal
news stories, using them to justify his doomeristic outlook, is
laughable and pathetic, for reasons I made clear up thread
(original DD thread). News stories are TERRIBLY misleading, as
far as the big and long-term picture goes. You cannot possibly
form an accurate picture of megatrends in the world from daily
news stories, in isolation. You might be able to form an
accurate picture from an analysis of news stories over many
years or decades, but that is not what RE does. You know what he
does.
But maybe you are just saying that it does not matter if RE's
news story fetish represents a valid way of learning about
important long term social processes. Maybe you are saying that,
if what RE is doing comports with your bias having to do with
NTHE probability and so on, then it is OK. Is THAT what you are
saying?
Alan[/quote]
Excellent rebuttal! I stand corrected on some of my assumptions
about your views. I will endeavor to be more nuanced and
detailed in my presentation in order to convince you that my
position, though it MIGHT very well be quixotic, is practical.
We have time here and there is no avalanche of snark to cloud
the debate.
I ran into this post today. I am posting it as a starting point
in our debate. I'll get to the other stuff little by little.
I post this now because Google's actions here, when
counterbalanced against all the bad stuff they are promoting,
looks like green washing. I hate green washing. >:(
But I like goats! ;D So, I think what they are doing has
merit.
[center]Who Tends the Grounds around Google's Headquarters?
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191258.bmp<br
/>[/center]
[center][img width=640
height=380]
HTML http://www.sitewit.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/google-goat-army-50.png[/img][/center]
[quote]
Goats tend to the grounds around Google's headquarters in
Mountain View, California instead of lawn mowers.
In an initiative to be more environmentally friendly and cut
down on air pollution from gasoline-fueled lawn mowers, Google
hires the services of a company called California Grazing, which
supplies about 200 goats to Google. The animals spend about a
week eating and fertilizing the grass in the fields outside
Google’s headquarters.
According to Google, using goats instead of mowing is roughly
the same cost, [color=green][size=12pt]but the goats are more
enjoyable for employees to watch, in addition to being a more
green solution.[/size][/color][/quote]
Agelbert NOTE: THAT is the kind of viable biosphere MATH that
the MKings and his Empathy Deficit Disordered corporate predator
BEAN COUNTERS do not understand.
Google is taking a page, discarded TOTALLY by the Wall Street
Social Darwinist RELIGION, from Taylor's Theory of Management.
That theory, now well over a century old, states that
considering the welfare and happiness of employees is a sound
and profitable business practice. The fact that it cannot be
quantified on a balance sheet does NOT mean it is not superior
to using "cheaper" polluting lawn mowers to mow the grass and
"cheaper" fossil fuel based chemical fertilizers, instead of
goat droppings, to feed the grass.
Viable Biosphere MATH is EMPATHY based cost/benefit math which
is more profitable than Empathy Deficit Disordered Social
Darwinist math.
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_6869.gif
The bottom line is that ANYTHING that brings DEATH is STUPID.
Anything that breeds LIFE through cooperation, altruism and
happiness is SMART.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/301.gif
[quote]
More about Google:
•Since 2010, Google has acquired an average of one new company
per week, for a total of about 170, and spent over $28 billion
US Dollars (USD) as of 2015. These include a clean energy
startup, a drone company, and an artificial intelligence
manufacturer.
•Approximately 200 different factors are taken into account for
the Google search engine to determine what results to show
users.
•There are an estimated 3 billion Google searches performed each
day, for an annual total of over 1 trillion searches.[/quote]
HTML http://www.wisegeek.com/who-tends-the-grounds-around-googles-headquarters.htm
#Post#: 3753--------------------------------------------------
Re: You will have to pick a side. There is no longer Room for Pr
ocrastination
By: AGelbert Date: September 13, 2015, 5:12 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Note: This forum is free. They punish me for that. :(
They want me to pay for the Pro version so searches work right,
gallery picture searches work, quotes aren't screwy, and I
control what words that get censored and what words don't get
censored.
I control none of that.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183312.bmp<br
/>I'm stuck with things the way they are. I may be a Christian b
ut
I'm not prissy about language. ;D The censor is weird here, You
can write the word "bastard" but you can't write **** or ****
(sh it or pi ss).
So, if you want the word " Fuc ked" to show, you have to put a
space somewhere to get by big brother. ;)
By the way, the "R" in the FUBAR acronym stands for
"Recognition", not "REPAIR", as you stated in caps.
I dare say that is difference with a distinction. ;)
You might say I am arguing that all hope is lost, so why the
picked knits?
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/fly.gif
I'm sure you agree that believing an existential threat has a
low probability is not equal to a sure thing.
What probability do you ascribe to N.T.H.E. (as I define Near
Term Human Extinction below)?
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_1730.gif
Please don't give me this answer:
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/bc3.gif
[img width=40
height=40]
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_6961.gif[/img]
I want to make it clear right now that I firmly believe I will
not witness it. I am pushing 70. I want to make it clear right
now that I think a massive government (s) funded Viable
Biosphere push of ten years duration (followed by a century of
carbon NEGATIVE infrastructure and continuous bioremediation of
degraded areas in the air, land and waters of the Earth) or less
would delay the event horizon several decades and possibly
prevent N,T.H.E. I believe that effort would give us a small
chance, but not guarantee success.
I want to make it clear right know that I firmly believe that,
if the above is not done, Homo SAPs born after the year 2000
will witness and suffer the extinction of the human species.
I want to make it clear that "extinction" doesn't mean there
will be no humans left by the year 2200. I mean that the
breeding pairs available will be insufficient to perpetuate the
species. People will be born in 2070 when the FUBAR letter "R"
changes from "Recognition" to "Repair". They will have a lonely
existence. Maybe they will be able to dig up genetic diversity
from dead people's DNA and start replenishing the species gene
pool. In a 6 degree to 8 degree Centigrade average temperature
increase atmosphere, I don't think that is likely. But they
might make it to 2250 or so.
Do you want my date for ZERO Homo SAPS? I don't have one.
Miracles can, and do, happen. My disagreement with you involves,
though is certainly not limited to, your firm belief that a
miracle is unnecessary and incremental measures will enable us
to muddle along. I agree with you on every positive measure you
wish to implement. It's the required scale and rapidity of
implementation that we disagree on.
Let me organize my thoughts and reply to your post. Forgive me
if I don't do the line by line thing consistently. I'm not
trying to be less specific or wishy washy. I find that style to
be a bit stilted and too often lacks overall context.
Ashvin uses it a lot to avoid big picture issues when a debate
is present. It infuriates me when he does that because I KNOW he
is using lawyer tactic fallacious debating techniques to "win"
the debate.
That said, I don't think your line by line rebuttal of my
statements is anything but an honest response. I just bring it
to your attention so you will understand why it normally isn't
my style, though I do use it from time to time.
The bottom line for me is to try to present my posts in a way
that gives the most clarity to root positions. That way some
common ground might be reached quicker and sparring on
downstream issues can be avoided.
I'll try to be as specific as possible.
#Post#: 3756--------------------------------------------------
Re: You will have to pick a side. There is no longer Room for Pr
ocrastination
By: guest17 Date: September 13, 2015, 7:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
In reply to agelbert: (the "quote" function does not work):
[quote]
They want me to pay for the Pro version
[/quote]
Stop paying them. You don't need it.
[quote]
What probability do you ascribe to N.T.H.E. (as I define Near
Term Human Extinction below)?
[/quote]
Very small. Almost nil. Say, .001%?
[quote]
I want to make it clear that "extinction" doesn't mean there
will be no humans left by the year 2200.
[/quote]
That's what I take it to mean. That's what "extinction" MEANS.
Extinct = no more left.
[quote]
Forgive me if I don't do the line by line thing consistently.
I'm not trying to be less specific or wishy washy. I find that
style to be a bit stilted and too often lacks overall context.
[/quote]
Use your preferred style. I like line by line because it
exercises discipline and keeps the discussion on track. I find
when people do not actually quote my words, they almost
invariably take me to be saying all kinds of things that I am
not saying.
....................
Of your readings about climate change, which were most
compelling? Which of them convinced you that human extinction
was even a clear possibility, much less likelihood? In other
words: how did you become so extremely pessimistic?
I don't know enough about the climate issue. But I've been
reading about it sporadically for 25+ years, and from everything
I can gather, the scientists doing the analyses and projections
are quite fallible, do not necessarily understand with such
certainty the things they claim to understand, and cannot, in
the end, be taken quite AS seriously as you seem to be taking
them. Further, the scientists themselves are the least culpable
in all this, being generally rather conservative and cautious.
(Most of them have intellectual maturity sufficient to know that
they ARE fallible, that they do NOT understand everything
without possibility of error, and so on.) The people who come
after the scientists -- the army of journalists, pundits,
commentators, interpreters -- proceed to take the scientists'
reports and present them with their own spin, their own tendency
to exaggerate (in accord with whatever bias they have to begin
with) and, often, their own overestimate of their own ability to
KNOW -- i.e. overconfidence and over-certainty.
It is clear that climate change exists and is likely getting
worse. It is likely that it will continue to get worse for a
long time. HOW MUCH worse is very much in question, and what,
SPECIFICALLY the implications will be of that worsening for
humans and the biosphere is also very much in question -- and
this is where the biases and overconfidence of which I just
wrote begin to loom very large. I simply cannot embrace the
rock-solid certainty being expressed by so many, including you.
In fact, I'll put it more strongly than that: those who are
DEAD-CERTAIN about particular effects or outcomes are just
crazy. It is not possible to be that certain, and at once
sensible and intelligent. There's too much that we don't know,
too many wildcards.
I speak as a science-observer of many years standing. I've seen
theories get upended. I've seen new discoveries come online and
suddenly completely upset orthodox views formerly held. I've
seen all kinds of things. And with climate, the subject is so
inherently difficult and complex, and loaded with uncertainties,
that I cannot buy the exaggerated confidence with which
pronouncements are made. I can buy that what they are saying is
POSSIBLE, perhaps LIKELY, but the certainty part is just beyond
the pale. It calls into question their sensibility and
intellectual maturity, perhaps even their sanity. NO ONE who is
intelligent can be that certain about such things.
You, AG, are a good-hearted, well-intentioned, morally aware,
and fundamentally intelligent man who has, in my view, bitten
into this apple too forcefully, and you are now "certain" about
things that you CANNOT truly be so certain about.
That's my view and I'm stickin to it. ;D
#Post#: 3757--------------------------------------------------
Re: You will have to pick a side. There is no longer Room for Pr
ocrastination
By: AGelbert Date: September 13, 2015, 9:21 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Like I said, this forum is free. I have no intention of paying.
;D I was simply explaining how it works for you.
I am doing a bit of research on poodwaddle to frame what we can
both agree is reality. This addresses your rather condescending
view that I don't have the full picture. Perhaps you are right.
I will try to convince you otherwise with data.
And Alan, I want you to re-read the post you just made. We have
barely started the debate and already you are maneuvering to
assign a degree of ignorance and overreaction to negative news
to me (see: biting apples deeply).
I am your peer in knowledge and experience. I respect your
knowledge and I demand that you reciprocate. Perhaps you don't
pick up on the fact that you can sound quite patronizing.
But you can. You just did. I think you are a good hearted person
too. But that isn't the issue here. And my firm belief in
altruistic behavior does not equate to sky is falling silliness.
We can get into a shouting match about me being an alarmist and
you being a wishful thinker. That isn't going to help, Alan.
I know the story you're are sticking to. I think that is clear.
Let's not belabor that, okay?
MY definition of extinction is that insufficient breeding pairs
are available to perpetuate the gene pool, even if a passenger
pigeon or two are still around.
If you happen to be one of those passenger pigeons, I don't
think you would commit suicide. Neither would I.
But if you cannot take the possibility of human extinction
seriously, the debate is over before it started.
Consider this a game of chess. We've got lots of time. Before we
discuss solutions. let's see if we can DEFINE what's going on
out there and why.
That's why I'm researching at poodwaddle. Government stats on
this, that and the other might be a bit gamed, but that's all we
have to go on. AGAIN, if you don't find them credible, we cannot
debate.
If I had to give you a date when no human will exist if our
present trajectory is not RADICALLY altered for the better, I'd
say 2250. I expect the average temperature increase in the
atmosphere will be from 6 degrees C to 8 degrees C above what it
is now. If you think that is impossibly alarmist, that's cool. I
will get to why that's pretty much baked in (pardon the pun
;D).
I am going to get into a lot of numbers soon. If you think I'm
going to slant them to make things look shi tty, tell me now and
I won't waste my time.
You think you can assume your position is impregnable. What is
your evidence?
Tell me about all the bioremediation you have witnessed in
China. Years ago you posted about all the greening they were
involved with. Did you ADD their efforts to your positive view
of our future? Probably. That's good. Did you SUBTRACT the
degradation of China's biomes from your equation? I hope so.
Show me proof that China is more biologically diverse now than
it was a mere 30 years ago.
I don't think it is. I think I can prove it isn't. I'm sticking
with China now because you know a lot about China. I do too. And
I know quite a bit about the other giant polluter called the USA
(with Europe not far behind). I'll get to them later.
You first. Spell out the biosphere math of China for me please.
Your optimism must have some basis. If it does, I'll alter my
position. If it doesn't I expect you to alter yours.
#Post#: 3758--------------------------------------------------
Re: You will have to pick a side. There is no longer Room for Pr
ocrastination
By: AGelbert Date: September 13, 2015, 10:20 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Extinct life forms aren't coming back, Alan. I don't consider
that encouraging, do you?
[img width=640
height=480]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-130915230122.png[/img]
WE are killing those animals, not "natural" selection, Alan.
Please do NOT bring the fossil fueler argument that, since 99%
of all the life forms that have lived on earth have gone
extinct, a few thousand more A YEAR is no big deal.
It's a BIG deal, Alan. We can't bring them back. And we still
know very little about what we will miss when they are gone. And
hard science has proven that the RATE of extinctions we are
witnessing is unprecedented in human history.
The precautionary principle of science DEMANDS that we do
everything we can to prevent pollution or cruelty or greed
caused extinctions BECAUSE we are part of this biosphere and we
do not fully understand how these life forms fit in to our
requirements for species perpetuation.
We are ignoring that principle.
Yes, the fine print at the bottom of that graphic says it is an
estimate. Do you think the count is "alarmist"? Do you think
they are "exaggerating extreme outcomes"? In fact, Poodwaddle is
far more conservative than many other serious biosphere tracking
sites out there.
#Post#: 3759--------------------------------------------------
Re: You will have to pick a side. There is no longer Room for Pr
ocrastination
By: guest10 Date: September 14, 2015, 11:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=alan2102 link=topic=206.msg3750#msg3750
date=1442113883]
Oh btw AG: in a subsequent post at DD you wrote the text below,
and I just want to say... BRAVO! DOUBLE BRAVO! Very well said
and I could not agree more. And fwiw I have spent a LOT of time
arguing this very point, at the hubbertsarms forum (circa
2009-10) and elsewhere. I am UTTERLY FED UP with the
"overpopulation" bull****, which is misleading in the extreme,
and worse. It is mean and cruel and anti-human, and MISSES (as
you so well point out) the real locus of the problem, which is
OVERCONSUMPTION BY THE AFFLUENT. Perhaps you caught in one of my
posts up thread at DD my mention of Trainer's book "Abandon
Affluence". The title says it all. I read it many years a go,
and it had deep impact on me. He was right then (circa 1983),
and he is right now. Excessive affluence is impelling us all
toward environmental disasters.
Anyway, kudos for a very good passage and takedown of monsta's
foolish post.
[/quote]
Finally we all agree on something!
I look forward to reading your guys' ongoing debate here.
#Post#: 3760--------------------------------------------------
Re: You will have to pick a side. There is no longer Room for Pr
ocrastination
By: AGelbert Date: September 14, 2015, 1:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Glad to see you here, Ashvin. [img width=25
height=30]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-080515182559.png[/img]
I quoted you on part three of my Laki Eruption article.
[quote]
Ashvin, a scholar and a lawyer, said the following hard truth
that modern academics refuse to accept:
Quote
[quote]
Secular ideologies can be abused and cause just as much harm as
religious ones, and if there was ever any doubt about this fact,
they should have been stripped away by the events of the 20th
century. [/quote]
At any rate , for those who have their eyes open, you can SEE
the results of the "Enlightenment" ALL AROUND YOU in the year
2015. [/quote]
[color=purple][font=times new roman]The 1783-84 Laki Eruption:
A Catastrophic Volcanic Eruption that Changed the Course of
Human History Part 3[/font]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/geopolitics/key-historical-events-that-you-may-have-never-heard-of/msg3712/#msg3712<br
/>
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page