|
Post by Russell Letson on Jul 27, 2015 16:00:00 GMT -5
In that sense, much of the global warming debate can be thought of as taking place between one side that is arguing for enforced stability, and the other which is saying that change is inevitable (and unavoidable) and not only not intrinsically bad, but perhaps quite good. But you never hear the debate expressed in those terms. Because science. Actually, all manner of warming/climate-change/sea-level-rise scenarios have been kicking around science fiction (the literature, not the movies) for quite a few years, exploring all manner of models of causation, abatement, and disaster-response modes. And believe me, the novelists didn't gin up the atmospheric models or the response speculations on their own--they prefer to work with what specialists have been chewing over. (My own reviewing history in this category goes back more than 20 years, and it wasn't a new set of tropes then.)
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Jul 27, 2015 16:01:41 GMT -5
I'll get off the GW discussion. Because it goes nowhere. But I'll go back to my favorite quotes of the talk: "The miracle of your mind isn't that you can look out the window and see the world as it is. It's that you can see the world as it isn't."
"Unlike God, we can't know what's going on out there. And unlike all the other animals, we're obsessed with trying to figure it out. To me, this obsession the the root of all our productivity and creativity."It's always amazed me how humanity progresses forward in such a random fashion. 10 steps forward; 9 steps backward. (Our step meter counts "19." But we're only 1 step ahead of when we started?). It's pretty much like evolution in general; a really sloooooow process. But I do think that hunger for knowledge; her obsession, is the natural thing. So much that I have fallen out of the Zen thing. Satisfaction with just being. Yeah, there's some value in it. But, at best, it's a respite from the grind; a way to put it in perspective; a way to recharge; rather than it's a way of life. It's in our nature to strive.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Jul 27, 2015 16:16:16 GMT -5
But I do think that hunger for knowledge; her obsession, is the natural thing. So much that I have fallen out of the Zen thing. Satisfaction with just being. Yeah, there's some value in it. But, at best, it's a respite from the grind; a way to put it in perspective; a way to recharge; rather than it's a way of life. It's in our nature to strive. When you walk around with a pattern-recognition/causation-detection engine balanced atop of your neck (and a marked deficiency in the teeth-claws-and-armor department), it's hard not to keep putting two and two together and wondering whether it's good to eat or is about to eat you. Zen is for those who don't need to keep looking over their shoulders or wondering where lunch is coming from.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jul 27, 2015 16:41:38 GMT -5
It's always amazed me how humanity progresses forward in such a random fashion. 10 steps forward; 9 steps backward. It's a leap to conclude progress from a system that is by definition random. The most that can be concluded is 'change', not progress as you're referring to it. Progress in the sense that there is no returning, but not progress in an evaluative sense that implies "improvement". There is no improvement -- only adaptation.
|
|
|
Post by patrick on Jul 27, 2015 16:42:34 GMT -5
Suppose we really do find a set of policies* that actually succeed in dramatically reducing CO2 emissions, and actually implement those policies, and manage to keep them implemented, on a global scale, uninterrupted, for 100 years**. On what basis do we assert today that the world in 2115 plus those policies will be "better" than the world in 2115 absent those policies? To be really specific, suppose South Florida starts seeing sea level rises that nibble away at it's land mass. What will happen? I'm fairly confident in saying that the sea won't take the lower half of the state overnight. It will be a slow and gradual process. And as it happens, what will people do? Will they move to somewhere else? Will they erect some manner of levies or sea walls or whatever? Will they truck in fill dirt and raise the ground level (ala Galveston 100 years ago)? Who knows. And when it's all said and done, what is our basis for asserting that South Florida as it exists today is "better"? I don't see anything particularly difficult about a set of policies being in place for 100 years. In fact, since what is needed is the implementation of current technologies in place of obsolete technologies, the real question is why wouldn't they stay in place? When was the last time you rode a horse to work? The argument about "better" is an argument against ANY human advances. Who is to say that a world without Alzheimer's Disease will be a "better" world? A world without juvenile diabetes? If fire were spreading from one house to the next in your neighborhood, who's to say that the neighborhood would not be "better" after all those houses burned down and got rebuilt? It's nice to engage in idle speculation like that, but the millions of people who live along the coastlines of the world would argue that a "better" world would not involve the destruction of their property and lives. In that sense, much of the global warming debate can be thought of as taking place between one side that is arguing for enforced stability, and the other which is saying that change is inevitable (and unavoidable) and not only not intrinsically bad, but perhaps quite good. But you never hear the debate expressed in those terms. Because science. * Personally, I don't think that is possible, and believe that if CO2 emissions really do go down, it will be the result of the development of some currently unforseen technology. But that is beside the point. ** How does that not seem absurd on its face? Yes, you can restate any debate in alternate terms that obscure the original topic. You can also frame it as an obsolete economic system fighting against disruptive technologies.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Jul 27, 2015 16:58:34 GMT -5
It's always amazed me how humanity progresses forward in such a random fashion. 10 steps forward; 9 steps backward. It's a leap to conclude progress from a system that is by definition random. The most that can be concluded is 'change', not progress as you're referring to it. Progress in the sense that there is no returning, but not progress in an evaluative sense that implies "improvement". There is no improvement -- only adaptation. Of course there's improvement. Life expectancy. Quality of life. They've certainly changed for the better since the Middle Ages. "Life is a vale of tears."
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Jul 27, 2015 16:59:10 GMT -5
What if those policies result in economic stagnation or collapse? If they take an unanticipated toll in human suffering? To me the discussion should be there...weighing the possible trade-offs. It's not all one way or another.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jul 27, 2015 17:10:22 GMT -5
What if those policies result in economic stagnation or collapse? If they take an unanticipated toll in human suffering? To me the discussion should be there...weighing the possible trade-offs. It's not all one way or another. I think that's been my biggest concern all along. Those most adamant about the policies they think will correct global warming simply stick their collective fingers in their ears and sing "la-la-la I'm not listening", though the devastation to the poorest, weakest among us is as certain as -- probably more certain than -- the disaster they fear from global warming. I believe that is so because those same people have an undying faith in the ability of government to intervene and confiscate from the haves to help out the devastated. And that is because they also share a view of wealth that is disconnected from production and tied simply to resources. They presume that, rather than an economy collapsing and taking everyone down with it, the wealth will remain a static thing that can be redistributed.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Jul 27, 2015 17:30:07 GMT -5
Suppose we really do find a set of policies* that actually succeed in dramatically reducing CO2 emissions, and actually implement those policies, and manage to keep them implemented, on a global scale, uninterrupted, for 100 years**. On what basis do we assert today that the world in 2115 plus those policies will be "better" than the world in 2115 absent those policies? To be really specific, suppose South Florida starts seeing sea level rises that nibble away at it's land mass. What will happen? I'm fairly confident in saying that the sea won't take the lower half of the state overnight. It will be a slow and gradual process. And as it happens, what will people do? Will they move to somewhere else? Will they erect some manner of levies or sea walls or whatever? Will they truck in fill dirt and raise the ground level (ala Galveston 100 years ago)? Who knows. And when it's all said and done, what is our basis for asserting that South Florida as it exists today is "better"? I don't see anything particularly difficult about a set of policies being in place for 100 years. In fact, since what is needed is the implementation of current technologies in place of obsolete technologies, the real question is why wouldn't they stay in place? When was the last time you rode a horse to work? The argument about "better" is an argument against ANY human advances. Who is to say that a world without Alzheimer's Disease will be a "better" world? A world without juvenile diabetes? If fire were spreading from one house to the next in your neighborhood, who's to say that the neighborhood would not be "better" after all those houses burned down and got rebuilt? It's nice to engage in idle speculation like that, but the millions of people who live along the coastlines of the world would argue that a "better" world would not involve the destruction of their property and lives. In that sense, much of the global warming debate can be thought of as taking place between one side that is arguing for enforced stability, and the other which is saying that change is inevitable (and unavoidable) and not only not intrinsically bad, but perhaps quite good. But you never hear the debate expressed in those terms. Because science. * Personally, I don't think that is possible, and believe that if CO2 emissions really do go down, it will be the result of the development of some currently unforseen technology. But that is beside the point. ** How does that not seem absurd on its face? Yes, you can restate any debate in alternate terms that obscure the original topic. You can also frame it as an obsolete economic system fighting against disruptive technologies. The big problem with 100 year plans is that ost if not all of governments involved will not exist in a hunderd years. Hell most of the curre t countries wonn't exist in a 100 years the US will certianly not exist 100 years from now.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jul 27, 2015 18:42:52 GMT -5
y'know, she was credible right up to the "slaughtering birds" thing. Bad debaters never grasp that one bad point will sink an entire ship of valid points.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jul 27, 2015 20:21:02 GMT -5
I don't see anything particularly difficult about a set of policies being in place for 100 years. In fact, since what is needed is the implementation of current technologies in place of obsolete technologies, the real question is why wouldn't they stay in place? When was the last time you rode a horse to work? That may be your opinion, but it would be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by RickW on Jul 27, 2015 20:27:04 GMT -5
Getting back to the original article, I had actually read it before, and I do agree with it. Unfortunately sometimes opinion is a part of decision making, if by opinion you mean anything that can't be proven buy fact, such as religion.
|
|
|
Post by RickW on Jul 27, 2015 20:28:18 GMT -5
I'll get off the GW discussion. Because it goes nowhere. But I'll go back to my favorite quotes of the talk: "The miracle of your mind isn't that you can look out the window and see the world as it is. It's that you can see the world as it isn't."
"Unlike God, we can't know what's going on out there. And unlike all the other animals, we're obsessed with trying to figure it out. To me, this obsession the the root of all our productivity and creativity."It's always amazed me how humanity progresses forward in such a random fashion. 10 steps forward; 9 steps backward. (Our step meter counts "19." But we're only 1 step ahead of when we started?). It's pretty much like evolution in general; a really sloooooow process. But I do think that hunger for knowledge; her obsession, is the natural thing. So much that I have fallen out of the Zen thing. Satisfaction with just being. Yeah, there's some value in it. But, at best, it's a respite from the grind; a way to put it in perspective; a way to recharge; rather than it's a way of life. It's in our nature to strive. It may be, and I suck at the zen thing, as much as I have tried to cultivate it over my life. But Buddhism was invented 2000 years ago as a method of stifling the monkey mind inside. Monkey mind just doesn't want to shut the fuck up.
|
|
|
Post by RickW on Jul 27, 2015 20:30:32 GMT -5
It's always amazed me how humanity progresses forward in such a random fashion. 10 steps forward; 9 steps backward. It's a leap to conclude progress from a system that is by definition random. The most that can be concluded is 'change', not progress as you're referring to it. Progress in the sense that there is no returning, but not progress in an evaluative sense that implies "improvement". There is no improvement -- only adaptation. I raised my arm, and started to wag my finger in the general direction of Warsaw. Then realized, shit, that's something I probably would have written. Thought maybe I would have said, it's just change. I'm not sure I would grace all of it with the term, "adaptation". Because that implies that there is a movement towards something more useful. And while we often do, we often don't.
|
|
|
Post by patrick on Jul 27, 2015 20:30:56 GMT -5
I don't see anything particularly difficult about a set of policies being in place for 100 years. In fact, since what is needed is the implementation of current technologies in place of obsolete technologies, the real question is why wouldn't they stay in place? When was the last time you rode a horse to work? That may be your opinion, but it would be wrong. Oh, screw you. And the horse you rode to work on.
|
|
|
Post by kenlarsson on Jul 27, 2015 20:39:19 GMT -5
It may be, and I suck at the zen thing, as much as I have tried to cultivate it over my life. But Buddhism was invented 2000 years ago as a method of stifling the monkey mind inside. Monkey mind just doesn't want to shut the fuck up. Personally I prefer to shock the monkey,
|
|
|
Post by patrick on Jul 27, 2015 20:40:10 GMT -5
What if those policies result in economic stagnation or collapse? If they take an unanticipated toll in human suffering? To me the discussion should be there...weighing the possible trade-offs. It's not all one way or another. I think that's been my biggest concern all along. Those most adamant about the policies they think will correct global warming simply stick their collective fingers in their ears and sing "la-la-la I'm not listening", though the devastation to the poorest, weakest among us is as certain as -- probably more certain than -- the disaster they fear from global warming. I believe that is so because those same people have an undying faith in the ability of government to intervene and confiscate from the haves to help out the devastated. And that is because they also share a view of wealth that is disconnected from production and tied simply to resources. They presume that, rather than an economy collapsing and taking everyone down with it, the wealth will remain a static thing that can be redistributed. Possible trade-offs get discussed all the time, and the argument usually falls on the side of renewables. It is the poor of the world who bear the greatest brunt from pollution caused by carbon-based fuels, whether it is the pollution in the cities in China and India, or the respiratory problems seen in coal mining towns in the US. And it is the poor of the world who are going to bear the brunt of global warming. The rich can always move to wherever it is most pleasant to live, while the poor are stuck where they are. While oil/gas/coal have largely ignored the poor of the world because there is no profit motive in building a grid to serve them, as well as the massive plants to generate the energy, renewables bypass that problem.
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Jul 27, 2015 20:58:26 GMT -5
Thank goodness.
From my personal perspective (you know, that opinion thing) electrification and modernization has caused overwhelmingly negative social and economic upheaval in rural Tanzania.
(Retreating to my next Wendell Berry book as I type...hah)
|
|
|
Post by Village Idiot on Jul 27, 2015 21:26:31 GMT -5
What is Lavalantula?
|
|
|
Post by patrick on Jul 27, 2015 21:42:51 GMT -5
Its a science fiction series in which an lava lamp is crossed with a tarantula.
|
|