+- +-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 41
Latest: GWarnock
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 8452
Total Topics: 228
Most Online Today: 2
Most Online Ever: 52
(November 29, 2017, 04:04:44 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 0
Total: 0

Author Topic: Picking Up Where We Left Off (at DD)  (Read 1625 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

alan2102

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Picking Up Where We Left Off (at DD)
« on: September 12, 2015, 10:42:49 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.

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.

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.

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) **** 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I think this is ALL ABOUT endowment bias
FINE. THEN CONVINCE US.

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.

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.

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.

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

alan2102

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Re: Picking Up Where We Left Off (at DD)
« Reply #1 on: September 12, 2015, 11:11:23 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

http://www.doomsteaddiner...11.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.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8257
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Picking Up Where We Left Off (at DD)
« Reply #2 on: September 13, 2015, 05:11:26 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

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.

Who Tends the Grounds around Google's Headquarters? 

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, 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. 

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.

http://www.wisegeek.com/w...-googles-headquarters.htm

« Last Edit: September 13, 2015, 06:15:25 pm by AGelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8257
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Picking Up Where We Left Off (at DD)
« Reply #3 on: September 13, 2015, 06:12:02 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.  I'm stuck with things the way they are. I may be a Christian but 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? 

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)? 

Please don't give me this answer: 

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. 
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

alan2102

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Re: Picking Up Where We Left Off (at DD)
« Reply #4 on: September 13, 2015, 08:47:12 pm »
In reply to agelbert: (the "quote" function does not work):

Quote
They want me to pay for the Pro version
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)?
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.
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.
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

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8257
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Picking Up Where We Left Off (at DD)
« Reply #5 on: September 13, 2015, 10:21:37 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.
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8257
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Picking Up Where We Left Off (at DD)
« Reply #6 on: September 13, 2015, 11:20:00 pm »
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.

Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

ashvin

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Re: Picking Up Where We Left Off (at DD)
« Reply #7 on: September 14, 2015, 12:31:42 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.

Finally we all agree on something!

I look forward to reading your guys' ongoing debate here.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8257
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Picking Up Where We Left Off (at DD)
« Reply #8 on: September 14, 2015, 02:24:18 pm »
Glad to see you here, Ashvin.   

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.


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.

The 1783-84 Laki Eruption: A Catastrophic Volcanic Eruption that Changed the Course of Human History Part 3
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

alan2102

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Re: Picking Up Where We Left Off (at DD)
« Reply #9 on: September 14, 2015, 03:05:29 pm »
agelbert:
Quote
This addresses your rather condescending view that I don't have the full picture.... 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
OK, I re-read my post, and I think I see what you mean. I used the word "crazy", and I doubted the "sanity" of those who are so uber-sure of themselves. That's an accusation, a strong one, I agree. Maybe I over-stated it. But not by much. There is a real element of hubris in this, I believe, and it does border on craziness. There is something wrong with people who are SOOOOO all-fired SURE of themselves about the ultimate outcome of all this 30, 50, 75 years hence. NO ONE can make predictions of very specific outcomes, so far out, with certainty. It is extremely difficult to make predictions of outcomes THIS YEAR, let alone a half-century from now.  This is not like predicting the outcome of some guy having just jumped off a 50-story building. Climate, as I said,  is very complex with numerous wildcards. And human responses to climate change even more complex with many more wildcards. The best we can do is make some very general statements about the trajectory and risks. And I believe we should act aggressively to mitigate those risks -- don't get me wrong on that point. What I object to is this uber-sureness and overconfidence, including wild, I mean WILD predictions like human extinction. That's beyond the pale. Sorry if you think that is "condescending" or "patronizing", but I cannot represent my view fairly in any other way.  I call them as I see them. If I see some guy out on the street yelling "prepare to meet thy maker -- TODAY!!!", then I conclude that the guy has a screw loose. Is that "condescending", or simply sensible and sane?

By the way, if you think that I am crazy, just say so. I will not be offended. But I will want to know why you say that.


alan2102

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Re: Picking Up Where We Left Off (at DD)
« Reply #10 on: September 14, 2015, 03:12:13 pm »
ashvin and agelbert:

regarding environment and social justice, you might enjoy my quora posts of this morning:

http://www.quora.com/Will...hings/answer/Alan-Lewis-1

http://www.quora.com/Is-a...verty/answer/Alan-Lewis-1

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8257
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Picking Up Where We Left Off (at DD)
« Reply #11 on: September 14, 2015, 04:09:44 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.   


Quote
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).
« Last Edit: September 14, 2015, 09:39:53 pm by AGelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8257
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Picking Up Where We Left Off (at DD)
« Reply #12 on: September 14, 2015, 04:13:14 pm »
Alan,
I'll check it out. But let's try to stay on track, okay? We need to agree on the PHYSICAL state of the biosphere BEFORE we address the reason Homo SAPS are so destructive (i.e. ROOT causes).

Please answer the extinction post. 8)
Please tell me what China has done to improve the environment and what it has done to degrade it in the last 30 years.
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Rogue Economist

  • Administrator
  • Newbie
  • *****
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Re: Picking Up Where We Left Off (at DD)
« Reply #13 on: September 14, 2015, 04:24:59 pm »
You weren't banned A21, you got yourself moderated for spamming the Diner.  I warned you that repeatedly posting the same screed would be considered spamming, and then you went right ahead and did it again.

Besides that, you are making dozens of posts a day on your own agenda.  If AG will tolerate that, that is his bizness, but I won't on the Diner.

RE

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8257
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Picking Up Where We Left Off (at DD)
« Reply #14 on: September 14, 2015, 08:56:09 pm »
RE,
Exactly right. 

Alan hasn't tried repetitious posts yet. I have warned him not to, among other things. I have clearly stated I demand he reciprocate respect and cut the arrogance, mockery and derision. I have warned him that his pitch is way to patronizing.  And the "convince US" argument he makes sounds like he wants to position himself as royalty. Only people far too filled with themselves use "US" instead of "ME".

Alan claims he wants to "stay on  track", then he does not honor requests to bring all debating points to the table by asking me to read something he wrote elsewhere. WTF!?

I ask him to provide data and he just goes away.

Alan, you have about 3 days before I shut down this thread. If you do not wish to respond to my requests for data to defend your position, then you are violating a cardinal rule of debate that requires you to bring all your points to the table with evidence that defends them.

Also Alan, please NOTE that both RE and Surly are admins here too.   8)
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

 

+-Recent Topics

Darwin by AGelbert
December 16, 2017, 10:35:03 pm

Member Interesting, Hair Raising, Humorous or Otherwise Unusual Experiences by AGelbert
December 16, 2017, 10:31:31 pm

Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution by AGelbert
December 16, 2017, 07:38:20 pm

Wind Power by AGelbert
December 16, 2017, 06:19:32 pm

The Big Picture of Renewable Energy Growth by AGelbert
December 16, 2017, 04:30:23 pm

Profiles in Courage by AGelbert
December 15, 2017, 11:49:23 pm

Global Warming is WITH US by AGelbert
December 15, 2017, 11:29:07 pm

Pollution by AGelbert
December 15, 2017, 05:05:03 pm

Future Earth by AGelbert
December 15, 2017, 02:51:20 pm

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
December 15, 2017, 01:35:42 pm

Free Web Hit Counter By CSS HTML Tutorial