Basically, fossil fuels are commodities, and commodities are assets. Assets can be mortgaged - and in this way, fossil fuels can be monetized without being extracted. The money raised by mortgaging fossil fuels would first go to applying sustainable energy technology. — karl stone

How do we mortgage an asset which can never be used, and thus has no value? Have you considered that maybe we're not discussing the ideas in your opening post because they make little sense, and we don't wish to continually shove that in your face?

So, your alternative is what? That we have less? How is that achieved? — karl stone

SIMPLISTIC PARADIGM: Our children should have as much knowledge and power as possible, as soon as possible! More and more and more power, faster, faster, faster! More is better!!

INTELLIGENT PARADIGM: Let's make some carefully reasoned decisions about what knowledge and power is appropriate for our children at this stage of their development. This will inevitably involve saying no to some knowledge and power, while saying yes to others.

I'm using children in this example to illustrate how absurd our current "more is better" relationship with knowledge is. If we replace the word "children" with the word "adult" nothing changes, the simplistic paradigm remains absurd.

Our culture is making an unwarranted leap from the fact that adults are more capable than children, to the ridiculous assumption that therefore adults can successfully manage any amount of power delivered at any rate.

So my durable friend, my alternative is to replace the outdated simplistic paradigm of the past with an updated intelligent paradigm that is appropriate for an era characterized by an accelerating knowledge explosion. That is, as we update our technology we also update the philosophy behind the technology.

Less is not an answer. — karl stone

You're the one arguing for a less sophisticated outdated philosophy from the past. You keep talking about evolution, while yourself failing to adapt to the new environment created by the success of science. You're in good company though, most of the culture is marching blindly right along with you, racing proudly towards the cliff.

Ha, ha! Comedians, that's how we save the world, more comedians.

I was once having this conversation on a forum of working scientists and one of the "experts" told me in all seriousness that adjusting our relationship with knowledge was impossible, so the only solution was for us to learn how to migrate across the galaxy. I like your hollowed out asteroid plan better though. :smile:

There's no going back. There's no standing still. — karl stone

Yes, exactly right. But philosophically speaking, standing still is what doing.

You keep defending a "more is better" relationship with knowledge which was entirely reasonable in the past era of knowledge scarcity, but is unworkable in the new era of an accelerating knowledge explosion.

You're engineer's mind is not grasping that technology and the philosophy behind it are a unified system which needs to be considered as a whole. If we're going to dramatically upgrade the technology, the philosophical component, our relationship with knowledge, has to be updated too.

"More is better" is a primitive, simplistic formula whose day has come and gone. There's no going back, there's no standing still.

Nature is telling us, update your philosophy, adapt to the new reality.

Or die.

My beef with you is - this is my thread, and thus far you haven't discussed my ideas at all. — karl stone

1) I've discussed the philosophy behind your ideas because, um, this is a philosophy forum. And not an energy forum.

2) This thread doesn't belong to you. Your posts belong to you.

3) You haven't pointed out any "massive flaws" in my perspective. Instead, you've failed to address the massive flaws in your own ideas, such as how one would mortgage an asset that can never be used, or how we'd install solar panels on a stormy ocean.

I'm asking readers to face the fact that the "smart and serious" people who form the cultural elite of our society don't know what they're doing. I'm asking readers to face the fact that the "more is better" group consensus which they assume to be correct is actually dangerously out of date. I'm asking readers to adapt to the knowledge explosion world we actually live in today, instead of clinging to the old knowledge scarcity world which has long been our past.

I'm asking a lot. Too much. And you can't keep up. And after discussing this obsessively for a decade I can report to you that this is completely normal. You are in very good company in not being able to get it.

I agree with you about one thing. The "more is better" juggernaut will continue to roll on, and there's nothing anyone can do about it. Well intended intelligent folks such as yourself will continue to dream the big technology dreams no matter what the logic of such dreaming is, until we hit the wall and the whole thing comes crashing down.

It's not logical to assume that we can create something as enormous and complex as a global technological civilization on the first try. Nor is it logical for me to assume I can do anything at all about what is coming by posting on forums. :smile:

Maybe what should be missing from political discourse is you and me?

I've been a news junkie for 50 years. Not sure what this hobby has accomplished really.

Check out BBC radio. In my area they're on the PBS channel during the very early morning hours (prior to 6am).

I've listened to NPR for years, but must admit they too have become just more breathless recycling of the latest melodrama.

Best I can tell, BBC has more international coverage, more in depth coverage, and far fewer ads. I just wish they'd learn how to speak proper English without the accents like we Americoons. :smile:

Speaking of renewables, check out this very informative documentary on Netflix which focuses on an all important element of renewables, batteries.

NOVA: Search For The Super Battery
https://www.netflix.com/title/80991272

PS: Wow, if you've ever considered pounding a battery with a hammer, or opening it up with your chain saw, this video will definitely talk you out of it.

No-one has disputed that human beings are limited; nor has anyone argued for unlimited use of technology. — karl stone

Again, which scientists or other cultural leaders are arguing that we should do less science? If you can not name anyone, or only a few, then doesn't it follow that the group consensus is a "more is better" relationship with knowledge?

If you are not arguing for unlimited use of technology, where do you propose we limit it? And how? You won't have answers to these questions, as is normal across the society, because the group consensus takes the "more is better" relationship with knowledge to be an obvious given which doesn't require examination or challenge.

So unless you are prepared to argue for some specific limits on technology, you are indeed arguing that human beings are unlimited in their ability to manage technology, as is the entire culture.

If you were the only person stuck in this outdated "more is better" paradigm I wouldn't harp on it, for I have no beef with you personally. I'm harping on it because the "more is better" position your position is rooted in dominates the entire society. And ANY position accepted without questioning by ANY group consensus requires inspection by philosophy.

In fact, if you are arguing against the "more is better" assumption underlying human behavior, it's you proposing the "radical transformation of the human condition, without offering any explanation..." — karl stone

I'm arguing that humans should learn, as we've always done. We should learn and adapt to the new environment created by the enormous success of science. You are arguing we should keep on doing the same thing we've been doing for centuries. You position yourself as a spokesman for the bright future but really you are, like the rest of the society, clinging to a dangerously outdated philosophy of the past.

"More is better" made perfect sense in the long era of knowledge scarcity. We are no longer in that era. The era we're in now is characterized by a rapidly accelerating knowledge explosion. New situation, requiring a new relationship with knowledge.

I'm still trying to put across the principle of acting responsibly in relation to a scientific understanding of reality - as opposed to applying technology as directed by religious, political and economic ideological misconceptions of reality. — karl stone

You're not succeeding because you never say anything but repeating that statement. Perhaps you could explain how we get to this imaginary place you are describing, and how we get there before we blow ourselves up.

People are mental and can't be trusted, so padded cells for everyone! But now what? — karl stone

Like you keep saying, face the reality that we are mental. And then, be rational, and don't give mental people vast new powers at an ever accelerating rate.

But we are not talking about children. We're talking about scientists, governments and industries primarily. Some extremely smart and serious people. — karl stone

Some extremely smart and serious people who have arranged things so that we can now destroy modern civilization at the push of a button in less than an hour. Very smart and serious people who rarely find this insane reality they've created interesting enough to discuss.

increasingly valid and coherent understanding of reality — karl stone

You aren't actually interested in reality, but you sincerely feel you are.

So how are you going to take those factors - already in play, out of the game? You can't. — karl stone

We can't, because intelligent well educated people such as yourself all across the culture put all their energy in to defending the outdated status quo, instead of facing the situation we are currently actually in. As example, do you want your next door neighbor to be able to create new life forms in his garage workshop? That's what's coming Karl, that, and more and more and more such vast powers available to ever more people.

Well it isn't going anywhere Jake - more is inevitable. People need water, food, clothing, housing, heat, light, employment, entertainment - and all you're offering them is less. — karl stone

Here's how easy it is to utterly demolish the group consensus you are chanting. The Amish have been doing perfectly fine for hundreds of years without participating in the reckless pell mell rush in to more and more and more technology. I've lived 2/3 of my life without the Internet, and somehow I survived. Water, food, clothing, housing, heat, light, employment, entertainment can all be provided without risking everything on a reckless race for more and more and more and more.

I'm offering us a sustainable future. You, the group consensus, are offering us that inevitable day when some vast new power slips from our control and destroys everything. One vast power gone wrong, one time, one bad day, that's all it takes.

You do not seem to have got to grips with the core concept - that is, science as a tool was pursued as a means to progress, whereas, science as an understanding of reality was suppressed relative to religious dogma, and thereby political and economic ideology. — karl stone

Thus proving that humans are of limited ability, limited rationality, limited sanity. It's upon that real world evidence that I'm arguing that the powers available to us must also be limited. You keep selling "science as an understanding of reality" while ignoring the reality of the human condition which is well documented in thousands of years of history in all parts of the world.

Similarly, we don't need superhuman powers of prescience to manage technology. All we need, is to know what's true, and do what's right in relation to what's true. — karl stone

In other words, you're arguing for a radical transformation of the human condition, without offering any explanation of how such a thing might come to be.

Sure, but it doesn't really get us anywhere, does it? It's of absolutely no help whatsoever to man nor beast. — karl stone

If we analyze the maturity of a teenager, and decide they are not yet ready to drive the family car, doesn't such an analysis get us somewhere?

My apologies for my impatience, which is my problem alone. I've had this conversation too many times to count, my own form of irrationality.
But (here come the excuses) this is so incredibly SIMPLE!!! that it frustrates me how intelligent well educated people struggle to get it, and rarely succeed. Look how SIMPLE this is...

1) We take it to be an obvious given that the powers available to children should be limited due to a realistic understanding of the limits of their ability and maturity. 99.9% of all sane adults agree with this.

2) On the day the child turns 18 we throw this rational common sense away and the group consensus changes to, "we should have as much power as science can give us, as fast as possible".

This transformation of the group consensus is not even vaguely rational. It blatantly ignores the well documented evidence provided by thousands of years of human history.

And here's why this irrationality takes place. We've transferred the blind faith we used to have in religion in to a blind faith in science.

A "more is better" relationship with knowledge and power is simplistic, outdated and dangerous. It's a childlike philosophy whose time should have already come and gone.

The idea of "unlimited science and technology" is purely hypothetical and somewhat unlikely. Your argument appeals to the unknown absolute to conjure fear. — karl stone

Please list for us the scientists and other cultural elites who argue we should be doing less science. The cultural consensus is that we should learn everything we can learn, as fast as we can learn it. Your opening post is part of that consensus.

This consensus is not rational, because it ignores the real world fact that human beings have limited ability, and thus should not be given any and all powers that we can create. As example, we are smart enough to create nuclear weapons, but not smart enough to get rid of them once created. What this demonstrates is the reality that just because we can invent something it doesn't automatically follow that we can also successfully manage what we've created.

My argument addresses itself to the reality of the philosophy of modern civilization as it currently exists today, a "more is better" relationship with knowledge, and thus power.

But I haven't proposed unlimited science and technology - as your absurd example of selling a ten year old boy a heat seeking missile demonstrates - your arguments are those of a straw-man tilting at windmills. — karl stone

As I've said above, I'm not really arguing against your specific proposals so much as I am arguing against the "more is better" technology is the solution to everything mindset which they arise from. And I'm not arguing with you personally so much as I am the cultural group consensus which your post illustrates.

Insofar as the gifted make use of those talents - and benefit from doing so, it is good for society (and the poor) that they should. — karl stone

Ok, yes, but should the top 20% own 90% of the wealth? If you answer yes, then what's the limit? 95%? 99%?

...if the history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggle, how could class consciousness be absent from the working class? — karl stone

Is capitalism dependent upon stupidity? In America today very few people hold the majority of wealth. And the rest of us just go along with that, distracted as we are by our TVs and social media accounts etc.

The top 20 percent of households actually own a whopping 90 percent of the stuff in America. — Washington Post

What if the top 20 percent owned only 30-40%? They'd still be doing great, and vast sums would be liberated to invest in infrastructure, education, affordable health care etc. But, we the 80% are too dumb to effectively challenge the rigged system, and so we swim in an ocean of preventable problems.

The solution would seem to be, socialism at the extremes, and capitalism in the middle. The goal should be to remove the extremes of wealth and poverty and create a largely middle class nation. We can still have capitalism in the middle that so each of us has an incentive to improve our situation.

Here's a very relevant documentary on Netflix.

Their problem is that they lack class-consciousness, and heaven and earth have been moved to make sure they don't develop class consciousness. — Bitter Crank

Perhaps this is another thread, but I've been impressed by these stats from a Washington Post article.

The wealthiest 1 percent of American households own 40 percent of the country's wealth,

Today, the top 1 percent of households own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent combined.

The top 20 percent of households actually own a whopping 90 percent of the stuff in America

Point being, you, me and 80% of Americans are squabbling among ourselves over the last 10% of the economy. As Bitter Crank might suggest, it's pretty amazing that we in the 80% seem largely incapable of focusing on this economic reality.

As example, Bernie Sanders suggested free college for everyone paid for by the super rich. What's not to like??? There were a few months of buzz about this and then the idea died. Even those students with huge loans around their necks seem to have forgotten this idea and moved on.

More evidence that we aren't as clever as we typically think we are.

If there is any prospect at all of successfully managing the potential dangers of science and technology, I'd suggest it follows from adopting responsibility to the meaningful implications of the reality science describes. — karl stone

First, there is some prospect of managing science and technology, we're already doing that. The question I'm raising is, can we successfully manage unlimited science and technology? If not, then it seems reasonable to at least question whether a development such as, say, unlimited free clean energy would on balance be helpful to human flourishing.

Next, you keep saying "the reality science describes" without referencing the imperfect reality of the human condition. I wouldn't harp on this except that it seems to me to be not a failure of your personal perspective so much as a logic flaw which almost defines modern civilization. Yes, if human beings were all rational as you define it then we could handle far more power, that's true. The problem is, we're not that rational, never have been, and there's no realistic prospect of us all joining the science religion and becoming Mr. Spock logic machines.

For, make no mistake - my technophobic friend, there is no retreat to the rural idyll for the majority. — karl stone

I'm not technophobic, I'm allergic to our simplistic, outdated and dangerous "more is better" relationship with technology. As example, do you want all citizens to be able to buy nuclear weapons at the Army Navy store? Assuming not, that doesn't make you an enemy of technology, that makes you an enemy of stupidity.

The situation I see is much like what any parent would experience raising teenagers. The parent has to make careful judgments regarding what kinds of powers their teen is ready to handle. It's a complicated situation. The kid is easily ready for a bicycle, but not a Harley chopper. The parent has to decide when the teen can upgrade from a bike to a moped to a regular motorcycle to a Harley. The situation can not be successfully managed with simplistic formulas such as "more is better" or "less is better".

Science culture sees itself as marching brilliantly in to the future, and anyone who wants to slow down the march is branded a technophobe. But the reality is that science culture is actually stuck living in the past, during the long era when we could learn as much as possible without limit because we were operating at a primitive level scientifically. The success of science changes this now outdated paradigm. "More is better" no longer works, unless that is you're content that your next door neighbor can create new life forms in his garage workshop.

I genuinely believe there is a way forward - that follows from the piece on evolution on the previous page, that being (intellectually) correct to reality, as all surviving life has done through attrition until human intellect, is a path that leads somewhere we must go. — karl stone

I agree with this, with the exception that you're not being "correct with reality", but instead engaging in fantasy, in regards to the central factor in this equation, the human condition.

Assuming the plan in your opening post would work, that doesn't automatically make it a good or bad thing. Your plan, any plan, exists in a larger context which must be taken in to consideration.

Be correct to reality or be rendered extinct. — karl stone

Yes, that's the equation I'm urging readers to consider.

The reality is that human beings are limited, just like everything else in nature. Theories that argue for the acceleration of knowledge development without limit are not "correct to the reality" of the human condition. To the degree we cling to such theories we are headed for extinction.

Why do we not sell surface to air missiles to ten year old boys? Understand that, and we understand why science can not continue without limits.

Granting science the highest authority is debatable because science doesn't produce truth about everything. It has the capacity to give us a truthful report on the physical, natural world. That's no small thing. It is gradually revealing how our brains work--that is most excellent. I trust science. What science is not equipped to do is tell us what we should do. — Bitter Crank

That's it, well said as usual Mr. Crank.

Had the Church recognized the significance of science from 1630, and pursued it as effectively the word of God the Creator - science would own authority, and be pursued much more rapidly and systematically than it was. — karl stone

Had that happened, that process would have given us more power sooner. How does this solve the problem that adult human beings, like their children, are imperfect creatures who can successfully manage only so much power? Or are you arguing that human beings can successfully manage ANY amount of power?

but I can explain why science is the right answer - and how accepting that a scientific understanding of reality has the authority of truth, provides a political rationale for the application of technology on merit. — karl stone

Ok, I get that this is your position. I'm just suggesting that this assertion may need some further clarification. So far, it's just an assertion. As example, a theist might claim "the Bible is the word of God", much as you are claiming "a scientific understanding of reality has the authority of truth". You are "seeking to do political philosophy". Making assertions, on their own, is not really philosophy.

Your position, that technology itself is inherently problematic, is a position I've encountered, but haven't argued against before. — karl stone

You're helping me better summarize my position concisely. Which is good, because I usually bury it in a mountain of words.

=============

SUMMARY: My position is that

1) the abilities of human beings are limited....

EVIDENCE: Thousands of hair trigger nukes aimed down our own throats, a literal gun in our mouth, which we rarely find interesting enough to discuss.

2)... thus, the powers available to human beings must also be limited.

EXAMPLE: We limit the powers available to children based on the realistic understanding that their ability to manage power is limited.

=============

My position isn't nihilism. As the children example illustrates, it's just common sense.

My primary objection to your thesis is that it appears to be a form of science worship, which I judge to be just as problematic as clergy worship. Both science and religion have their valid uses, but I'm wary of all attempts to paint either as a "one true way".

You've misunderstood. I've said magically becoming rational was the natural course of human affairs, but a course we didn't take. It may seem strange to you to envisage, but then you are not who you might have been. Humankind struggled from animal ignorance into human knowledge over countless generations, and then balked at the prospect of actually knowing what's true. Had man in a worshipful manner - made it his vocation and duty to know what's true, and do what's right in terms of what's true - it would be as if a red carpet unfurled at his feet. — karl stone

No offense, but I understand that this is just too vague to keep my interest. Let's try again in another thread, and thanks for the chat.

Whats the solution? — frank

Pain.

We'll just keep on being reckless until we finally hit a wall and enter a period of great crisis. After enormous suffering common sense will once again be imprinted upon the group consensus. That will work for awhile, until all those who lived through the crisis die off, and the times are once again good, and then we'll start the predictable journey back towards the next crisis.

Or, the great crisis will trigger a global nuclear war and that will end the cycle for a much longer period, perhaps forever.

There's really little evidence that we're all going to wake up someday soon before a crisis and decide on our own to be responsible.

How should we proceed, given that - what I'm trying to say is that your conclusions are subsumed within my paradigm? — karl stone

1) What is your paradigm exactly? It sounds like a science worshiping religion to me, something about how everyone will somehow magically become rational? If you want me to get it, please be as specific as possible.

2) I get that you want to mortgage oil in the ground, but I still don't get how that works.

3) I get that you want to put masses of solar panels on the ocean, but I don't get how that works either.

Because everybody else was already taken. — Bitter Crank

:smile: :smile:

Well, I can't blame you for not replying. — karl stone

Huh?

That certainly could be said about the nature of science - and how it is employed in society, but much more might also be said about the nature of science, and I would argue - how therefore, science should be employed in society. — karl stone

I've been attempting to say much more on this topic in the other thread, or we could do it here, either is fine.

Fundamentally, I am not asking man to manage the powers science makes available. I suggest they should be managed in relation to a modern day scientific understanding of reality; that is to say, the truth that provides the power should be taken on board in deciding how it is employed. — karl stone

Ok, how does that work exactly? Can you be more specific?

You have identified the phenomenon, certainly - but the cause is buried deep in the history of the ideological development of civilizations; — karl stone

Ok, yes, it's a philosophical problem, not a science problem. Science is just a machine which does it's job well. It's our relationship with science which is the problem.

and thereby claim the full, scientifically advised functionality of technology — karl stone

What does this mean? My understanding of "scientifically advised" is that we should learn as much as possible, that is, a "more is better" relationship with knowledge.

That's the mismanagement you identify, but attribute - incorrectly, to the nature of science and technology itself. — karl stone

The nature of science is to develop knowledge, which typically is then converted in to some form of power, ie. an ability to manipulate the environment.

The nature of human beings is that we are imperfect, able to successfully manage some power, but not an unlimited amount of power.

Thus, at some point the nature of science and the nature of human beings come in to conflict. Science keeps developing more and more knowledge/power, and at some point reaches and exceeds the limits of the governing mechanism, human beings.

Your thread argues for the science religion dogma, the "more is better" relationship with knowledge. That dogma is the cause of the problems you are trying to solve.

So, how bad was it where you live? What was it like? — Bitter Crank

Nothing much happened here, the storm went around us. A slight change in path would have changed that. We're in the middle of the penisula, so no storm surge etc, but if this one had headed our way it wouldn't have been fun. Thanks for asking!

I really do understand your argument. You believe any technology we invent to solve one problem, necessarily causes other problems, and perhaps, bigger problems. Is that not it? — karl stone

Not quite it, but thank you for reading enough to get that far. To quickly summarize my thesis is that scientific progress if pursued without limits will inevitably produce powers which we can't successfully manage. Evidence, we currently have thousands of hair trigger hydrogen bombs aimed down our own throats, hardly a case of successful management.

I'm not really objecting to your specific technical proposal as I don't feel qualified to do that. I'm instead objecting to assumptions I see behind your proposal, such as the idea that saving the world is a technical problem requiring technical solutions. My argument is that such a simplistic notion is the very idea which brought us to the problems you are trying to solve, with more of that idea.

I do not accept that argument because, I believe, you assume that the application of technology we have is a rational and natural course of events, for a world blind to that problem.

What I'm saying is that the application of technology is perverse - and that the problem you describe is inherent to this perversion of science and technology. But science and technology is not correctly applied.

This perversion stems from the suppression of science as truth from the 1630's, and the subsequent use of science as a tool for the pursuit of ideological power and profit. — karl stone

Ok, I don't quite get this yet, so perhaps you can expand on it in future posts? I hear something like "we're using science incorrectly" because various religious and commercial powers have subverted it. But I'm not sure that's what you mean.

The technology exists - the need to apply it is clear. So why is it not applied? — karl stone

Well, we've not yet resolved key problems with your proposal, as I understand it so far. How do we derive commercial value from petroleum in the ground which forever remains in the ground? How do we put mass solar panels on an ocean subject to repeated storms. Maybe the technology has not been applied simply because it wouldn't work as you describe it?

I don't know what you don't get about mortgaging an asset. — karl stone

Why is a material which can never be used an asset?

The point is that you’re apparently confusing thought or information processing with dualism or something that ‘operates by a process of division’. We’re not continuously self-conscious, nor is self-consciousness necessary for information processing.Dualism is only an issue because of our self concept, or rather, our attachment to the concept. — praxis

Consider the noun. It's purpose is to conceptually divide one part of reality from another.

I would suggest that solar panels floating on the surface of the ocean, could produce electricity - used to power desalination and electrolysis, producing fresh water and hydrogen fuel at sea, collected by ship, or pumped through pipelines to shore. The geographical area available at sea is incredibly vast, and effectively shading the ocean, with thousands of square kilometers of solar panels would also help combat global warming. — karl stone

Where I live, we just narrowly missed getting hit by a Category 4 hurricane which just ripped through the Gulf of Mexico. Storms on the ocean are, you know, kinda common. Where exactly do we put the panels that won't experience storms?

...the solution I devised is very simple, and entirely consistent with the principles of our economic system. Basically, fossil fuels are commodities, and commodities are assets. Assets can be mortgaged - and in this way, fossil fuels can be monetized without being extracted. The money raised by mortgaging fossil fuels would first go to applying sustainable energy technology. — karl stone

I think I need more discussion of this, which seems central to your plan.

I read your answer to SSU, but don't get it. Or maybe you don't get it either? Not sure. Try again if you want.

I just needed to prove that sustainability was technologically possible - and it is. — karl stone

Yes, if we remove human beings from the equation, then I agree sustainability is likely technologically possible.

I know. I read your other thread. Interesting thesis. I'm sorry I haven't replied on your thread yet, but I'm hitting this hard - here and elsewhere right now. I get it. — karl stone

No worries on replying, there is no obligation. But sorry, no, you don't get it. Not yet anyway. That's completely normal, especially for science worshipers, no matter how many PhDs they have.

You appear to have an engineer's mind, and you like to talk about reality a lot, but you seem to be completely ignoring the reality of human beings, the central fact in this mechanism you are trying to build. It's like designing a great car in a purely technical manner, leaving out any consideration of the driver.

A better approach is to look at the problem holistically, considering all the factors involved. Then, look for the weak link, the single point of failure, and address that. As example, if I upgraded the engine, transmission and drive train on my car so that it could go 500mph that sounds technically impressive. But if I forget to upgrade the tires too, it's all for nothing.

In the real world of human beings, if your plan was implemented successfully the end result would be that we would continue racing recklessly forward as fast as we can until we hit some other wall. Like all science worshipers you want to give us as much knowledge and power as possible, a well intended plan which ignores the fact that human beings can't successfully manage unlimited power.

It might help to think of us as a mechanical data processing chip inside of the machine you are building. The power of your machine is limited by the power of that chip. You can't just ignore the limitations of the governing mechanism and build anything you want.

Again, as a purely technical exercise I don't feel qualified to complain about your plan. Just saying, in the real world it's not a purely technical issue.

What is it that makes an electro-chemical information medium dualistic? Is, for example, a mechanical recycling device that separates bottles from cans dualistic? — praxis

I'm referring to human thought, which is an electro-chemical information medium, that operates by a process of division. Don't believe me, see it for yourself, observe your own mind.

Consider the experience "I am thinking XYZ". You experience the thinker as being separate, divided from, the content of thought. Within your own mind you experience 1) the observer and 2) the observed. That's the dualistic operation of thought dividing you from yourself.

I don't know anything about mechanical recycling devices, sorry.

Fort Agnostic, featuring high walls, a lovely moat, and a tall tower upon which to look down on the ignorant masses. — praxis

Finally someone gets it right! :smile:

Yes, that can be argued, but that doesn't seem to address my point. — S

Apologies, but I've forgotten what your point is in this particular case.

By a meaningful difference, I simply meant that the two positions should be mutually exclusive. — S

In the real world, or in the dictionary? As example...

In the dictionary, things exist or not, yes or no. The dictionary is created by humans, and humans are made of thought, a highly dualistic electro-chemical information medium which operates by a process of conceptual division. The dictionary attempts to impose this human generated dualistic conceptual system upon reality.

In the real world, the largest part of reality by far, space, can not be firmly said to either exist or not exist. Our dualistic minds demand that we file space in to one category or another, but reality is not required to comply with our limitations. Space is not required to either exist or not exist, one or the other, just because that's how we like to look at things.

That is, I shouldn't be able to be both an atheist and a theist in the same sense. — S

It's the same with theism/atheism, faith/reason. You declare yourself to be an atheist, and your atheism is built upon faith. You are against faith, and for faith, both at the same time. You are against reason, and for reason, both at the same time. It's not all neat and tidy, black and white, like you want it to be.

But of course, you've totally missed the larger point I was attempting to make. Faith and reason can lead to the same place if followed far enough.

What's wrong with this argument? — khaled

It didn't mention me even once. :smile:

Hi again Karl,

Well, obviously we're not opposed to clean energy and abundant fresh water. If we confine your post to a purely technical analysis of how to solve purely technical problems, your ideas may be worth considering. I don't really feel qualified to analyze your technical ideas, but they are interesting to examine.

I would however decline your larger claim that these technical fixes will "save the world". We tried to "save the world" by implementing the industrial revolution, and what we accomplished was to replace one set of problems with another set of problems that are arguably larger. We tried to "save the world" with the Manhattan project, and what we accomplished was to put human civilization less than an hour away from destruction in every moment of every day.

You're trying to apply technical fixes to a problem which is not fundamentally technical. The real problem can be described with a single four letter word. More.

What the evidence shows is that whatever technical powers we develop we will relentlessly push the envelope in a reckless manner in the endless quest for more, more, and more. And by doing so we continue a process of giving ourselves more power than we can successfully manage.

Your ideas might give us some breathing room, but if successful they just kick the can down the road a little bit and we'll soon find ourselves once again up against the wall. As example, endless free clean energy would result in us burning through other finite resources at an accelerated rate. The problem gets moved from one box to another box, but the real problem doesn't get addressed, or solved.

It appears that, like most of our culture, you've bought in to the science "religion" which has as many or more problems than regular religion.

Explained further here.

So what does exploring that realm mean? — schopenhauer1

If you should decide to explore that question I may participate.

I just had a dream the other night about moving out and going to college, and a celebration party made by my mom. — Posty McPostface

My thoughts about dreams are that this is a good one. :smile:

But what are your assumptions here about facing the void and the like? — schopenhauer1

I'm not sure I understand your question, so please feel free to expand on it. Until then...

If we are to truly look at what we are doing, we are constantly thinking of ways to make sure we have something to work towards. — schopenhauer1

As your sentence suggests, the story we call "meaning" typically involves a process of becoming. I am becoming richer, smarter, nicer, stronger, etc. I am traveling from here to there. I am becoming this or that. A writer might call this the "story arc".

However, with any prolonged reflection, these goals are just placeholders for a void. — schopenhauer1

Yes, kind of like the person who keeps the TV on all day because they can't face the silence of an empty house. We typically keep busy, busy, busy building the becoming story called meaning to keep the void at bay.

Other animals, let's say a bird, has no need for self-deception. It doesn't fill voids of meaning. It eats its seeds, it makes its nest, it chirps in the morning, it finds mates, and repeats. The human is one that must self-deceive at all moments that there is something to do, somewhere to go, and something to be. — schopenhauer1

What I don't see in your posts, perhaps because it's not in Schopenhauer's writing, is that this statement....

The human is one that must self-deceive at all moments

... is false.

We aren't actually required to fill all moments with the search for becoming story meanings. No law of nature prevents us from taking a break from the becoming story meaning, turning to face the void, and then exploring that realm.