Renewable Revolution

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

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!    So, I think what they are doing has merit.

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, but the goats are more enjoyable for employees to watch, in addition to being a more green solution.

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.

The bottom line is that ANYTHING that brings DEATH is STUPID. Anything that breeds LIFE through cooperation, altruism and happiness is SMART. 

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.

http://www.wisegeek.com/who-tends-the-grounds-around-googles-headquarters.htm