How Libertarianism was created by big business lobbyists

[bb113]

Who knows, the whole thing is a mess. Either way my personal philosophy sidesteps the issue. We should strive to become more efficient and less wasteful anyway. And even if it was occurring governments should help by no longer artificially encouraging growth, not schizophrenically encouraging growth but also taxing it.

Amen to that.

I think that would be a big mistake. For one thing, trying to be more efficient and less wasteful may leave us with less wealth and technology to deal with a species-survival threat. For another thing, what most people think of as efficiency is usually extremely inefficient. We may go to lots of effort to develop a solar infrastructure only to invent fusion two years later. Generally, you want to make major changes as late as possible so you have as much wealth, information, and technology when you do it. There is no advantage to having saved lots of a resource when it becomes no longer useful.

Not if we consider genuine efficiency and waste. A big clue is that if something costs more than you make back in savings, it probably is actually inefficient (as you suggest). Ethanol in gas for one incredibly retarded example.

While this may be true we need to acknowledge that the future is uncertain and should seek out robust solutions to problems, often this means mimicking nature. For example I would think solar will still be better than fusion in the case if only because it is more decentralized.

- Glacier melt creates ice albedo feedback loops, This creates an accelerating warming.
- Glacier calving creates rising sea levels. It also changes ocean currents.
- Warming causes an ocean density decrease. This also creates rising sea levels.
- Warming causes species habitat relocation northwards in the northern hemisphere
- Warming causes species habitat relocation southwards in the southern hemisphere
- Habitat relocation causes annual movement equal to miles per year
- Annual movement in miles per year causes species to hit barriers
- Barriers are suburbs, bodies of water, uninhabitable terrain, etc.
- Barriers cause species extinction
- We are actually undergoing a species extinction rate at an unprecedented rate
- Extinctions destroy ecosystem services and trophic cascades
- All of life (including humanity) require ecosystem services to live
- Extinctions also result in information loss
- The information in question is genetic material, social systems, biological processes, biological structures, etc.
- This information drives technology in the form of research and development
- Potentials are: material science, computer science, medicine, engineering

- Changing precipitation patterns which vastly render existing agriculture unusable
- This increases costs
- Increased storm violence

Some of these are predicated on warming to a degree which I claim hasn't been proven to exist. The other assumption is that such warming is all caused by human action and not simply natural cycles, some are wild speculation, some are not even caused by supposed warming. Some of these are not yet known to be long term trends (weather is not climate as we are frequently told). And of course, any possible benefits from warming are totally discounted (not that I am a flag waver for that but it should be noted). And exactly what proportion of new discoveries in the sciences are made from rooting out and analyzing obscure species and not from some goober in a white coat sitting in front of a computer anyway? We used to get aspirin from willow trees you know.

Oh really? If you say so.

In other words, I see nothing in your above statement other than your speculation and hope that what you're saying is close to the truth. In actuality, everything I mentioned has been heavily studied and documented. Want an example?

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/341435/title/Animals_on_the_Move

That's just a summary of one item on my list. There are citations, as well as a huge body of research that goes back a long time.

Please go do this, and think about what the consequences really are of the last 50 years of science using a logical fallacy as its means of assessing itself. Think about what kind of social structure allows this to persist for over half a century:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=127448.0

Heavily studied and documented actually doesn't mean that much. It means something... it means that prevailing expert opinion is strong in that area. That isn't worthless, but it isn't anywhere near the objective "truth" that the romanticized scientist strives towards.

[FirstAscent]

Who knows, the whole thing is a mess. Either way my personal philosophy sidesteps the issue. We should strive to become more efficient and less wasteful anyway. And even if it was occurring governments should help by no longer artificially encouraging growth, not schizophrenically encouraging growth but also taxing it.

Amen to that.

I think that would be a big mistake. For one thing, trying to be more efficient and less wasteful may leave us with less wealth and technology to deal with a species-survival threat. For another thing, what most people think of as efficiency is usually extremely inefficient. We may go to lots of effort to develop a solar infrastructure only to invent fusion two years later. Generally, you want to make major changes as late as possible so you have as much wealth, information, and technology when you do it. There is no advantage to having saved lots of a resource when it becomes no longer useful.

Not if we consider genuine efficiency and waste. A big clue is that if something costs more than you make back in savings, it probably is actually inefficient (as you suggest). Ethanol in gas for one incredibly retarded example.

While this may be true we need to acknowledge that the future is uncertain and should seek out robust solutions to problems, often this means mimicking nature. For example I would think solar will still be better than fusion in the case if only because it is more decentralized.

- Glacier melt creates ice albedo feedback loops, This creates an accelerating warming.
- Glacier calving creates rising sea levels. It also changes ocean currents.
- Warming causes an ocean density decrease. This also creates rising sea levels.
- Warming causes species habitat relocation northwards in the northern hemisphere
- Warming causes species habitat relocation southwards in the southern hemisphere
- Habitat relocation causes annual movement equal to miles per year
- Annual movement in miles per year causes species to hit barriers
- Barriers are suburbs, bodies of water, uninhabitable terrain, etc.
- Barriers cause species extinction
- We are actually undergoing a species extinction rate at an unprecedented rate
- Extinctions destroy ecosystem services and trophic cascades
- All of life (including humanity) require ecosystem services to live
- Extinctions also result in information loss
- The information in question is genetic material, social systems, biological processes, biological structures, etc.
- This information drives technology in the form of research and development
- Potentials are: material science, computer science, medicine, engineering

- Changing precipitation patterns which vastly render existing agriculture unusable
- This increases costs
- Increased storm violence

Some of these are predicated on warming to a degree which I claim hasn't been proven to exist. The other assumption is that such warming is all caused by human action and not simply natural cycles, some are wild speculation, some are not even caused by supposed warming. Some of these are not yet known to be long term trends (weather is not climate as we are frequently told). And of course, any possible benefits from warming are totally discounted (not that I am a flag waver for that but it should be noted). And exactly what proportion of new discoveries in the sciences are made from rooting out and analyzing obscure species and not from some goober in a white coat sitting in front of a computer anyway? We used to get aspirin from willow trees you know.

Oh really? If you say so.

In other words, I see nothing in your above statement other than your speculation and hope that what you're saying is close to the truth. In actuality, everything I mentioned has been heavily studied and documented. Want an example?

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/341435/title/Animals_on_the_Move

That's just a summary of one item on my list. There are citations, as well as a huge body of research that goes back a long time.

Please go do this, and think about what the consequences really are of the last 50 years of science using a logical fallacy as its means of assessing itself. Think about what kind of social structure allows this to persist for over half a century:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=127448.0

Heavily studied and documented actually doesn't mean that much. It means something... it means that prevailing expert opinion is strong in that area. That isn't worthless, but it isn't anywhere near the objective "truth" that the romanticized scientist strives towards.

What were the flaws in the cited article? Please do not provide generalities. Provide specifics related to the content of the article.

[FirstAscent]

I don't imply that the well being of humans is unimportant, but that humanity is what you're looking to save, not "the earth." I just want you to be honest about it.

Ok, then I'll just link to this post when your fellow libertarians accuse me of wanting to wipe out the human race in favor of the environment.

[myrkul]

I don't imply that the well being of humans is unimportant, but that humanity is what you're looking to save, not "the earth." I just want you to be honest about it.

Ok, then I'll just link to this post when your fellow libertarians accuse me of wanting to wipe out the human race in favor of the environment.

See, that's the funny thing. That's actually your stated goal. Well, not the entire race, just a whole bunch of us. That's why we laugh at you. You advocate killing millions to save "the earth," when what you're really trying to do is preserve the status quo, which is what keeps humans thriving.

"We must slaughter humanity to save it!"

[FirstAscent]

I don't imply that the well being of humans is unimportant, but that humanity is what you're looking to save, not "the earth." I just want you to be honest about it.

Ok, then I'll just link to this post when your fellow libertarians accuse me of wanting to wipe out the human race in favor of the environment.

See, that's the funny thing. That's actually your stated goal. Well, not the entire race, just a whole bunch of us. That's why we laugh at you. You advocate killing millions to save "the earth," when what you're really trying to do is preserve the status quo, which is what keeps humans thriving.

"We must slaughter humanity to save it!"

Sorry, but no. Feel free to mine my posts for quotes.

[myrkul]

Sorry, but no. Feel free to mine my posts for quotes.

I'll pass. I have better things to occupy my time with, and you do a fine job of making a fool of yourself, without my help.

[Richy_T]

Oh really? If you say so.

In other words, I see nothing in your above statement other than your speculation and hope that what you're saying is close to the truth. In actuality, everything I mentioned has been heavily studied and documented. Want an example?

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/341435/title/Animals_on_the_Move

That's just a summary of one item on my list. There are citations, as well as a huge body of research that goes back a long time.

Most of your "points" are actually one point split out to three, four or more line items in some rambling attempt to make your list look longer. Several of them are not points related to global warming but simple tautologies. You also consider only certain aspects of situations without considering the wider context. Your agenda is transparent and your strategy crude.

[bb113]

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/341435/title/Animals_on_the_Move

That's just a summary of one item on my list. There are citations, as well as a huge body of research that goes back a long time.

...

What were the flaws in the cited article? Please do not provide generalities. Provide specifics related to the content of the article.

Well for one thing that is a news article. The immediately obvious thing wrong with it is there is no assessment of error or uncertainty in the figures presented.

[FirstAscent]

Sorry, but no. Feel free to mine my posts for quotes.

I'll pass. I have better things to occupy my time with, and you do a fine job of making a fool of yourself, without my help.

I'll take that to mean that you're deciding your accusation is irrelevant and wrong. Thank you. Otherwise, my posts are public and you can attempt to demonstrate some truth to your claim.

[Richy_T]

While this may be true we need to acknowledge that the future is uncertain and should seek out robust solutions to problems, often this means mimicking nature. For example I would think solar will still be better than fusion in the case if only because it is more decentralized.

I don't know. The version of solar I'd like to see would be satellites beaming power down. That's fairly centralized and has many benefits over individual solar. Now, distributed nuclear power, that's something that could be made to work (I believe)

[FirstAscent]

Oh really? If you say so.

In other words, I see nothing in your above statement other than your speculation and hope that what you're saying is close to the truth. In actuality, everything I mentioned has been heavily studied and documented. Want an example?

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/341435/title/Animals_on_the_Move

That's just a summary of one item on my list. There are citations, as well as a huge body of research that goes back a long time.

Most of your "points" are actually one point split out to three, four or more line items in some rambling attempt to make your list look longer. Several of them are not points related to global warming but simple tautologies. You also consider only certain aspects of situations without considering the wider context. Your agenda is transparent and your strategy crude.

I don't care about how many items are in the list. I did that to show a chain of effect. Show the tautologies. You guys are coming up short in droves here. Nothing you said here makes your claim have any truth.

Please tell me: how does a count of the items in the list make them untrue? You're engaging in deflection.

[Richy_T]

"We must slaughter humanity to save it!"

That's exactly the quote I was thinking of posting. Can I get a high-five?

[FirstAscent]

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/341435/title/Animals_on_the_Move

That's just a summary of one item on my list. There are citations, as well as a huge body of research that goes back a long time.

...

What were the flaws in the cited article? Please do not provide generalities. Provide specifics related to the content of the article.

Well for one thing that is a news article. The immediately obvious thing wrong with it is there is no assessment of error or uncertainty in the figures presented.

Oh, it's a summary of scientific research, you say? Then follow up with the citations. Otherwise, I guess you can't judge it. Or correct me if I'm mistaken - perhaps you are qualified to judge. Demonstrate how.

[FirstAscent]

"We must slaughter humanity to save it!"

That's exactly the quote I was thinking of posting. Can I get a high-five?

Search my body of posts and show me.

[myrkul]

Sorry, but no. Feel free to mine my posts for quotes.

I'll pass. I have better things to occupy my time with, and you do a fine job of making a fool of yourself, without my help.

I'll take that to mean that you're deciding your accusation is irrelevant and wrong. Thank you. Otherwise, my posts are public and you can attempt to demonstrate some truth to your claim.

You can take it to mean whatever you want, but what it actually means is that I'd rather spend my time with more enjoyable pursuits than proving you to be an idiot when you do so well on your own.

[FirstAscent]

Sorry, but no. Feel free to mine my posts for quotes.

I'll pass. I have better things to occupy my time with, and you do a fine job of making a fool of yourself, without my help.

I'll take that to mean that you're deciding your accusation is irrelevant and wrong. Thank you. Otherwise, my posts are public and you can attempt to demonstrate some truth to your claim.

You can take it to mean whatever you want, but what it actually means is that I'd rather spend my time with more enjoyable pursuits than proving you to be an idiot when you do so well on your own.

Another claim, now about me being an idiot. Yet you were the one who lent credence to the idea that the Colorado shooting was faked. 

[bb113]

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/341435/title/Animals_on_the_Move

That's just a summary of one item on my list. There are citations, as well as a huge body of research that goes back a long time.

...

What were the flaws in the cited article? Please do not provide generalities. Provide specifics related to the content of the article.

Well for one thing that is a news article. The immediately obvious thing wrong with it is there is no assessment of error or uncertainty in the figures presented.

Oh, it's a summary of scientific research, you say? Then follow up with the citations. Otherwise, I guess you can't judge it. Or correct me if I'm mistaken - perhaps you are qualified to judge. Demonstrate how.

This is baby stuff. Clearly data dredging going on here. Why 5% of births/emergence? Why not 10%? 20%?



Figure one from the paper shows the actual data, and we now understand why they chose 5% :


http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/363/1501/2367.full.pdf+html?sid=ad1b0e43-ccf7-471b-b881-b3879a322954

[bb113]

To their credit they do actually show a good amount of thier data which is more than I can say for the vast majority of biomed articles. Also keep in mind that each of those points in the upper panel should not be points but should be distributions, since they are taking the mean of multiple species data. They are ignoring variability thus making it more likely they can get a small p value. Ditto on the calving birth rate since they are combining data from multiple plots of land.

[iCEBREAKER]

- Glacier melt creates ice albedo feedback loops, This creates an accelerating warming.
- Glacier calving creates rising sea levels. It also changes ocean currents.
- Warming causes an ocean density decrease. This also creates rising sea levels.
- Warming causes species habitat relocation northwards in the northern hemisphere
- Warming causes species habitat relocation southwards in the southern hemisphere
- Habitat relocation causes annual movement equal to miles per year
- Annual movement in miles per year causes species to hit barriers
- Barriers are suburbs, bodies of water, uninhabitable terrain, etc.
- Barriers cause species extinction
- We are actually undergoing a species extinction rate at an unprecedented rate
- Extinctions destroy ecosystem services and trophic cascades
- All of life (including humanity) require ecosystem services to live
- Extinctions also result in information loss
- The information in question is genetic material, social systems, biological processes, biological structures, etc.
- This information drives technology in the form of research and development
- Potentials are: material science, computer science, medicine, engineering

A burgeoning human population of 7 billion plus people is ever more dependent on technology and future technology to properly survive, and have quality of life. If we destroy our ecosystem services, and continue with high extinction rates, it is analogous to bleeding like crazy.

If we destroy all the information that resides within biodiversity, the ultimate end is a vastly simplified planet, like a desert of sand. There's so much less information to tap in such a world. Our real wealth currently exists untapped in the rich complex state of life.

And I haven't even discussed all the other ecosystem services.

TL;DR: 

ZOMGZ WEER ALL GONNA DIEEEEEEE!!!

[myrkul]

Sorry, but no. Feel free to mine my posts for quotes.

I'll pass. I have better things to occupy my time with, and you do a fine job of making a fool of yourself, without my help.

I'll take that to mean that you're deciding your accusation is irrelevant and wrong. Thank you. Otherwise, my posts are public and you can attempt to demonstrate some truth to your claim.

You can take it to mean whatever you want, but what it actually means is that I'd rather spend my time with more enjoyable pursuits than proving you to be an idiot when you do so well on your own.

Another claim, now about me being an idiot. Yet you were the one who lent credence to the idea that the Colorado shooting was faked. 

See what I mean? Only an idiot would mistake skepticism as lending credence to a conspiracy theory.