Renewable Revolution

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?

You don't? Well, try this on for size:

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.

I'm not sure about that. Alan specifically said that our real problems are NOT material and rather "spiritual", so I am inclined to believe that he agrees with you and I about the ROOT of our situations. Of course, the Orwellian PTB have made it very difficult for him to weigh in.

Quote

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".

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.

There is a "massive" and powerful organized element putting people to sleep. There are also massive and unorganized elements doing it.

And there is a small, somewhat organized element OVER-reacting to the above and exaggerating extreme outcomes and preaching Apocalypse. You are now officially a part of it.

This is simple logic - if you yell out that incremental measures are a waste of time and there is a 95% chance of extinction in the next 100 years, people who hear and believe you will stop any "incremental" measures and GIVE UP HOPE.

In your mind, there is A LOT of evidence to back up this NTHE prediction, so as to make it beyond a reasonable doubt. So, I understand why you may be willing to make the assertion despite its logical implications. But I say the assertion is absurd.

Quote

WHAT probability do you give to N.T.H.E. ?

PLEASE, lurkers and posters of all stripes weigh in. Give us a percent number from one to 1 to 100. Palloy can do the math. UB can tell us how the probability of a threat DOES NOT have to be greater than 50% do justify IMMEDIATE action, rather than incremental measures. I'll wager that 20% is enough to dispense with incremental measures, but I'm a "victim" of "confirmation bias" so I may be a bit prejudiced.   

And Ashvin, PLEASE, don't claim you don't have enough data or knowledge of environmental science to avoid giving a number. Don't play the lawyer avoiding being buttonholed into a corner. You HAVE a number in your head. That NUMBER influences everything you say about this subject.

Yes, I have a number in my head. Let me clear, that's ALL it is - a number in my head. I'd say <1% chance of NTHE in the next 100 years. It's not backed up by anything but feeling and loose speculation.

This is not being "the lawyer", it is being reasonable, logical and responsible. Reason tells me that it is a FOOL'S errand to assign probabilities to such a major event.

The only thing that really gives me confidence in the number in my head is my spiritual outlook. If you're going to point to spiritual realities as the ROOT problems, then you can't ignore spiritual realities as the ROOT solution.

Ashvin, I find your tone is dismissive. I think Surly explained the whys and wherefors of Alan's thread hogging and thoroughly tedious repetitious posts.

Quote from: Ashvin

Well this is ridiculous :emthdown:, but unsurprising...

You guys wanted an excuse to kill the dialogue, and you found it in his "PSA", which was tolerated just fine until you couldn't respond to his substantive points anymore.

Plenty of people responded in copious detail to what you euphemistically describe as Alan's "substantive points." Your assertion that his "PSA" was tolerated "just fine" is wholly in error.

Quote from: Ashvin

Relegating him to the Dungeon is exhibit A of your cognitive dissonance, confirmation bias and general unwillingness to entertain anything that doesn't back up Doom on the horizon.

Classic ad hom. -2. Alan is most assuredly NOT in the Dungeon; his posts are subject to moderation. That is all. Apparently he has taken his fit of pique and gone elsewhere to enlighten the unwashed. His contributions are still welcome; his evangelism less so.

Quote from: Ashvin

DD has taken a huge step towards becoming a site for propaganda now, NOT journalism or sound analysis.

This site has always had a POV, and no one who reads DD or the comedic stylings of RE on a regular basis, would EVER accuse this site of "sound analysis." It is the contribution of different voices read and considered in whole that give this site whatever dubious value it may have. Here's hoping that in the future you will be as generous with your contributions as you are with your criticism.

Your response to Surly was way over the top. So, you think this forum is into "newspeak" or is a "propaganda outlet" that overreacts to negative news, retreating into "hysterics"?  For a person coming from TAE, a site that will not give me the time of day, despite the fact that I have been reasonable and logical in everything I post, that is absolutely Orwellian on your part. Despite Ilargi's FREQUENT behemoth articles, I have never heard you say WORD ONE about their huge word count, but you were quick to critique my "excessive" verbiage. The Automatic Earth has no difficulties censoring people they don't want there. Your position is hypocritical.

Your descent into derision and mockery of my position that we are in danger of extinction is sad. I am not a nervous nelly. You should be ashamed of yourself.

As you have noticed on my forum, I am continuing the debate with Alan.

I totally disagree with your claim that our extinction trajectory, if proven to be factual, is cause for despair. That is hyperbole on your part. I repeat, I did NOT say it was a sure thing. I said there is a high probability of it occurring. If YOU want to overreact to bad news, that's YOUR problem. As an allegedly logical and reasonable person, you should ask for point by point evidence to back the assertion that extreme outcomes are NOT being exaggerated.

You aren't doing that here. You don't wish to take the subject seriously. THAT is part of YOUR world view/endowment bias.

As to Alan's agreement that the root of the problem is spiritual in nature, I certainly agree. But Alan has ridiculed the faith you and I share in the past. I guess you have forgotten that. Perhaps he is into some Gaia faith but try not to get confused about what Alan means by "spirituality", OKAY?

One more thing: This debate cannot address root causes until we are all on the same page about what is actually happening in the physical world of the planetary biosphere. As long as you ascribe extinction warnings to the category of hysterics and propaganda, you will question the credibility of any bit of negative data presented.

I presented this data to Alan at the start of the debate in my forum. I'm waiting for him to answer without mockery or derision.   

Extinct life forms aren't coming back, Alan. I don't consider that encouraging, do you?



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.

http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/general-discussion/picking-up-where-we-left-off-(at-dd)/msg3758/#msg3758


Ashvin, your dismissive tone and outlook is unreasonable, illogical and, considering who butters your bread at TAE, Orwellian, counselor.

Your assertion that a tiny group can "overreact" to a tsunami of propaganda by TPTB to keep people asleep is not a logical statement; it's ridiculous. But it is based on your view that there IS NO massive propaganda effort to put people to sleep (SEE: Endowment bias or Confirmation bias).