That sounds very political! :D

The ‘west’ should absolutely keep cutting carbon emissions. My key point is that investing in new technologies gets thing solved more quickly (example creating vaccines that pass safety regulation within a year or two when they usually take around much longer).

The population is expanding still so we will inevitably keep using more fuel as their infrastructures improve and expand. Not doing so will effectively hold these countries down economically and they’ll exploit their natural resources in an inefficient manner. The most likely net effect then is that the amount of fossil fuels being burned isn’t going to decrease that dramatically so I, and others, simply point out that investing in research and developing technologies in this area would be a very good idea.

Whatever we do in more ‘developed’ countries will be replicated by rising nations - in food production, manufacturing and energy consumption. Saying we don’t know when we’ll develop better means of energy production is nothing like saying we don’t know how to. There are investments in these technologies but they should really be much much more. Thankfully private industry does invest in this kind of thing because governments simply don’t have the clout to do so (barring dictatorships).

With food production there is far more scaremongering involved regarding GM foods that have held us back.

Here is someone who quietly and calmly states some scientific facts regarding misconceptions: prof. David Hume - The Genes in our Food.

A lot of what he says are what most would regard as ‘the wrong approach’.

All I ever did was call for more caution. For this, several posters immediately classed me as an anti-vaccer, as irrational, evil, and such. I'm benumbed by such a reply, I certainly didn't expect it at a philosophy forum. — baker

It is the way in the internet works. I keep pointing this out to some but they seem to want to win the argument and mock others rather than do anything constructive.

I’m guilty of it myself in the past too. I’m entirely sure why it is people behave like this tbh.

There is that I guess. We're not exactly great with dealing with threats over the horizon though.

I've said for years education is key ... but frankly I don't even know what that means or where to begin :D Often enough our mistakes lead to discoveries. I don't think we'll ever give up though and the further we get into this age of communication the better our chances of getting through it mostly intact.

Undoubtedly humanity has the potential to do almost everything we can imagine. We just don't tend to agree about how to go about it though or what is most important.

Because I gave a link it doesn't mean I hang on his every word. I guess you lump Hans Rosling in with him too because he isn't a climatologist?

I've heard BOTH of these people say that climate change is a prominent risk. It is others who spin it as 'overly optimistic' or 'climate denial'.

The science is that we'll need billions and billions of solar panels to replace other sources (not that I am saying that is the plan). Solar is something that should be used more widely in richer countries for sure! Wind power is currently more viable I think, but not everywhere is great for it.

I listen to what people say I don't just dismiss everyone as a lunatic even if I think they are WAY off mark. I look to see what is a reasonable mistake to make and what isn't.

Small things do count. We can individually make small steps. Really though I am COMPLETELY pessimistic about what will happen but I hope for the best. That said I don't believe in acting like the sky is going to fall on us either.

Nothing comes for free. Humanity has taken massive strides and we're going to have to pay for it one way or another (as is always the case). I don't believe the best way to do so is to act arrogantly or look down on others as the brief uplifting feeling you get will have to be paid for by everyone else trying to build bridges rather than walls.

There are good people in positions of power trying to make a difference. They will fuck up. They will make the right call for the wrong reasons, or the wrong call for the right reasons.

My general view of humanity is we don't think we react. If we see a fire in the garden we grab and it and bring it into our house to figure out how to put it out. Sometimes the house catches fire and sometimes we get lucky and realise how lucky we were after the matter of fact.

What it boils down to for me is I see money and resources being poured into areas that make a negligible difference (if anything) because it suits the media's narrative (which is nearly always hyperbolic).

This has infected how governments respond too. This is clear in the whole Covid reaction too. At first no one cared and now they all care WAY too much after the main fear has mostly subsided (ie. developing a vaccine). Now we're gaping into a chasm of increased poverty and less reason to be concerned about the environment.

We can at least SEE the effect of a halting economy on a global scale and have a better idea of the kind of impact it would have ... although the fallout for the poorest will probably not be appreciated fully for a generation or two yet.

I just hope for, but don't expect, people to actually start learning to resist calling each other 'stupid' or boxing them up in a package of some ism so as not to listen to them anymore. I don't ever expect to get there myself fully I just hope to improve, adjust and try and be true to what I think rather than worry to much about what others think and do. The age old 'live by being an example' but constantly failing :D

Most GG gas emissions are from China, the US and Europe that have already went through their demographic transition. — Olivier5

I know. China is looking into nuclear innovations.

The amount of energy needed will continue to increase as the population swells and the population will swell as the number of people in poverty increases — I like sushi

For Africa and Asia it will continue to swell. For everywhere else not a great deal. Population stability comes through decreasing poverty. Energy consumption is a primary marker of poverty.

Energy consumption in a country (per person) is generally higher the higher the GDP. This is why I'm saying we want more consumption in poorer regions. Severe poverty barely exists in western countries anymore and China has literally gone from mass poverty to almost none overnight. Hopefully Africa will do the same too BUT this means more energy consumption.

The issue is not IF we should use more energy but HOW we source this energy. Solar is a possibility for Africa perhaps but for many other places relying on the weather isn't very practical. Innovations in new materials for insulation is one more step. There are many possibilities to use energy more efficiently tha go beyond mere production.

If (as Janus said) population increase is the main concern then decrease poverty curbs this dramatically - this is quite obvious in the US and Europe where the population is falling or only slightly increasing.

African countries who ARE currently undergoing rapid growth, consume a minute fraction of global fossil fuels production. — Olivier5

Yes. But if the aim is to reduce population growth then it is to Africa and Asia the focus needs to go. To stabilise the population it needs to go up up up NOT down. They will use more energy if they want to get out of poverty (it is necessary). To get out of poverty the cheapest sources of energy are what they'll look for.

It does sound counter intuitive to suggest that having more children will stop population growth.

I clearly don't have any solution to any of this (who does). My point was, and is, stopping economic growth means holding people back. It would not prevent population growth. To stop population growth the population has to rise as quickly as possible. Too many people is not an issue, the issue will be not enough energy resulting in more apocalyptic scenarios that will overshadow any climate change (barring a meteor strike).

In the western world there is more concern about 'super rich' people avoiding taxes and pointing at their carbon footprints than there is for looking at actual practical long term solutions to dealing with climate change. Personally I'm more concerned with the destruction of natural habitats but that has more to do with poverty than carbon emissions so my bias lies there more than anywhere thinking about it.

I find the idea that more GG emissions would be desirable to mitigate climate change a bit counter-intuitive. — Olivier5

It is a problem in and of itself trying to get people to look beyond their own doorstep. There is no kind of blind assumption that population growth decreases with wealth. This happens everywhere. The amount of energy needed will continue to increase as the population swells and the population will swell as the number of people in poverty increases. It is a vicious circle. The best way to break the cycle is to get as many people out of poverty as possible. Then we're in a better position to directly address the next steps of the process.

In the meantime cheaper fuel is the only realistic way of getting people out of poverty - by innovating more efficient coal power stations and gas power stations, whilst furthering research and development into nuclear power (which is NOT a solution but one step towards helping in a way much more significant than current renewables (ie. wind and solar).

These things are already happening but sadly the political scene is swept up in a frenzy of clueless individuals ranting about the end of the world and misrepresenting numerous data sets simply because they fit into their narratives. It has gotten so bad with the current media channels that where the ignorance was mainly on the side of those that are not in a position to be very well educated about matters as this now it has seriously infected those that should really know better (have some 'epistemic responsibility').

There's no reason to assume as you do that future research findings will save us from an increasingly aggressive climate. — Olivier5

Of course. The alternative is it's already out of our hands though. That seems to be pretty clear. Events in the past have led to innovation where people presented doom and gloom scenarios. Crops were modified, immunisations got rid of diseases and we're not far off landing people on Mars.

Stating this isn't the same as saying 'don't worry about it'. I'm just saying things are not as bad as they seem half of the time but that doesn't mean we should worry and plan ... meaning it is better to PLAN then worry. The hysteria surrounding this topic is a detriment to making and understanding a reasonable course of action that can be implemented and adjusted when mistakes are made (which they will be) and/or new data presents itself (which it will).

Talk of 'the end of research' is the kind of hysteria I mean btw ;)

I don't know how to react to that except with contempt and disgust. — Srap Tasmaner

That is likely because you know you can do the same without knowing and probably have. It is disturbing to understand this fully but once you can kind of accept it (although I don't mean do nothing about it) then there is a hope.

I believe, in my biased mind, that if I can do my utmost to guard against falling into this trap (even though I will) then it will have a knock-on effect. I might be wrong but it's a bias that doesn't seem to have too many obvious draw backs atm :D

Past a certain level of climatic stress, there will be a collapse of society in many places, and research will collapse too. — Olivier5

Because you say so or because this is your dream? Or are you just stating the obvious for no apparent reason. You do understand that the targets already in place are just pointless political posturing without any real intent other than to quell the masses? This is because money is a dirty word now and no matter who states that global warming can only be resolved by economics no one wants to listen because to say that is to say to the general public 'rich is good and capitalism will save us' ... that is all it seems people hear when that is NOT what is being said.

The crux is the poorest need cheap energy. The more they get the less poor they will be and the more able they'll be to switch to more costly/efficient long term ways of consuming energy.

Another issue attached to this is food production and ideas of going vegan. There are professors at the height of the field who point out that meat production is perfectly viable and more environmentally friendly in many areas compared to soybean and other crops. The big issue is people are scared of 'GM foods' and make the whole industry less safe and more costly for everyone in terms of the monetary cost and the environmental cost (aka the ECONOMIC COST).

I'm not angry about this. It is just the way humans operate. It can be overcome with education to some degree ... and again we're back to square one with poverty preventing this. I'd say whatshisface who wrote the pop science books abut human history gets one thing spot on. We're led by 'stories' and currently this is a problem due to the way in which we're communicating - or rather 'trying' to communicate in the face of new technologies.

Nothing about this is simple. The only certainty I see in all of this is that humanity could probably do a lot more to be a lot more efficient in many different areas. The biggest issue we seem to have is our inability to abstract exponential growth. Our brains are just not currently constructed to deal with the kind of scales we are grasping at.

It is wrong to say that anything is always wrong no matter what! This is always the case ... er ... oops! Forgive me PLEASE! I was wrong.

BUT was I ALWAYS wrong? Not possible! So I retract my apology :)

Then why is he promoting battery-powered cars? If batteries are charged using fossil fuel derived energy they would be, due to efficiency losses at every stage, less green that fossil-fuel powered cars.

Also, nuclear energy is arguable undesirable as it is dangerous on account of the more enriched uranium you have the more potential there is for more nuclear weapons, and waste disposal is an
unsolved issue.

Also decline in reproduction rates due to increased prosperity will arguably be too little too late, even if the prediction panned out, which it may not In different cultures, places and circumstances. — Janus

He invests in everything I mentioned because he is looking at both short term and long term action as far as I can tell. Some will pay off more than others. The primary point I was making was that it is nonsensical to invest ALL money in an area that doesn't look to make any drastic changes unless it helps both long term and short term. Hence there needs to be, and actually is, a careful gamble on what currently help[s and what could help in the future.

Elon Musk main contribution is going to Mars and batteries. His view, last I heard, was to harness solar power by way of storing the power effectively. Investment in solar tech has made it more affordable for many (in fact I can see them lookin gout of my window right now). The reason people buy them is because it saves them money not because it saves the environment (trust me people in the country I reside are really not all that interested in the effects of global warming even though it has been effecting the farming industry due to salt water inundating fields).

Nuclear power is undoubtedly the best short term solution BUT the issue is that is it too costly. It is clean energy and has no carbon emissions (which we know is a major cause of current global warming trends). Luckily other countries are investing in creating the next generation nuclear power plants because they are concerned enough to realise that switching from coal power stations is needed (solar and wind are nowhere near replacing coal power). Gas is far better than coal too so more efficient gas power makes sense and it's cost coming down will help poor people out and reduce population growth. Of course I'm drastically oversimplifying this but it is no more oversimplified that stating that reducing carbon emissions will help lower the rate of global warming. The complexity comes with weighing and balancing what can be done and what is most cost effective (the later cannot be ignored!).

Too little too late? We're not all going to die out. We are a species that is highly adjustable and at every point in our history the doom and gloom has not turned out to be such a problem when innovation helps staves off the doomsday scenarios repeatedly forecast. If you call this 'scientism' and can only ask where you draw the line. I'm not denying there are problems but I am denying there is any one fix to these issues. As for CRIPSR you'll see the effects and controversy start to rise over the next decade or two.

What we should be doing is scrapping all privately owned cars that are not needed for practical purposes (trades, transport, agriculture etc), using public transport and electric powered bicycles, turning all the lights out at night, and adopting any measure we can, fuck the inconvenience, to reduce fossil fuel use; but I won't hold my breath expecting it to happen. — Janus

I don't wish to sound patronising here but I need to highlight this. This is the typical attitude of western living. In the parts of the world that matter people cannot CHOOSE between private and public transportation because they reside in countries that are too poor to accommodate this option.

In terms of in the west this is more viable but people won't do it so you need to provide private and cleaner transportation methods. For some (very few in global terms) it is an 'inconvenience' whereas elsewhere such things are a necessity of mere survival.

So yes, coal replaced in more economically developed countries sooner rather than later (yet no nuclear power stations on the horizon in terms of innovation or construction), whilst the other growing economies are responding by investing in nuclear power and using cheaper methods of energy extraction. To be fair Fracking has made a drastic reduction in gas costs and helped lessen the cost of living for many - again though hyperbolic media coverage and do-gooders have not promoted this venture just like they don't promote nuclear power (which is WAY better than solar and wind in term of energy production and could be much better with some innovation).

We may be lucky enough that there will be some super viable technological breakthrough in either cheap energy production or carbon sequestration, but we would be fools to depend on it. — Janus

It won't be 'luck'. Governments, and private developers, are actively investing in these areas (in the west it is more down to private ventures it seems) so they will happen. In some cases massive amounts of resources will be used with no real pay off. In other cases it will pay off. It will pay off for nuclear power I reckon because the stations current designs are pretty bad (the next generation will improve matters).

You seem to have bought into the fantasy of scientism, but you're by no means unique in that. I don't share your optimism, but then I also think that, if there is to be any solution, it will have to come from science, because very few will be willing to downscale their lifestyles. — Janus

I live by the code 'expect the worse and hope for the best'. I'm fairly aware of my own stupidity and other people's. I don't need to look at the negative aspects of life and the future because I expect them to happen all the time. I'm more fascinated by things than concerned about my or anyone else's so-called mortality.

I think I am correct in stating that better communication and cooperation across the board is something we should probably attend to more is reasonable enough. Beyond that I'm not in much of a position to say what should be done and only express what can be done and consider - with as little bias as possible - what the benefits and detriment of each options are and how they effect each other and how seemingly extrinsic factors might get tangled up in this too.

Hence, poverty is a big issue when it comes to climate change as it effects health, education, economy (basically energy production and use), population and the political mood. These are all fractured into different areas around the globe and reasonable and measured communication could do a lot to reduce hyperbole and get to the heart of what works rather than what seems like a good idea but is actually not tenable at the moment. That is why I don't see halting economic growth as anything like a viable plan in the near future (within this century) as it would effectively pin a large proportion of the Earth's human population in poverty for 'eternity'. I'm sure there are ideas about how it could work and reduce poverty and I'm all ears to hearing about that if you have any articles/ideas on this subject to share.

Burning more coal and gas is indeed the most likely near future scenario. Transition to green technologies cannot be achieved overnight. — Janus

I'm not saying these things are not worth investing in but I agree with the analysis of many (including Lomborg) when it comes to finding better solutions. The issue is the innovation comes from those that can afford to pay for it and those people are often viewed with contempt by middling income populations.

The cheaper the fuel the quicker the poor can benefit (as energy is huge issue). China will shift to more to nuclear power and hopefully make some innovations in this area that make it more affordable for other countries too.

If you look at the link I gave (gapminder) you can play around with some of the stats to see how some trends relate to each other. The singular most obvious one is that when GDP goes up so does healthcare and education, whilst population growth declines. If the primary issue is the number of people in your mind then getting people out of poverty is the way to do it (the data we have on this is pretty solid).

Note: There are numerous qualified people who openly state that a lot of the media coverage around this subject is hyperbolic but NONE of them deny the problem exists. The backlash they get is usually along the lines of 'pseudoscience' but generally they are just ignored because it doesn't suit the story some want to portray. Solar has made strides mainly thanks to multimillionaires (not government funding) but even they are quite aware (because it is their business) that some renewable avenues are nowhere near enough atm. Elon Musk knows that solar and wind power are not particularly useful in their current or near-future states.

There are some projects ongoing that could solve the energy issue (note: the term 'private'):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoZ9wGtruEU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TceN_hOWhMY

In reality these are long term solutions. The current issue is making more efficient (effectively cleaner and more affordable) nuclear power stations and more efficient coal and gas power stations.

The reality is also that these things are being looked into and invested in. The reality is also that the media and political circles are more focused on negative news (as always) because just like those investing in the areas mentioned they are out to serve their own purposes. Sadly their purpose is to sell 'ideas' and 'stories' that satisfy the consumer (and the consumer wants drama and crisis rather than innovation and optimism).

Humans are quite strange creatures. There is a weird balance between our inability to think on larger scales (underestimation when it comes to exponential growth), inbuilt 'bias' (we adjust our opinions that skew to our beliefs rather than those that don't) and the ability to attempt the so-called 'impossible' either out of stupidity or overambition (and break the rules of what is and isn't considered 'impossible').

We cannot eradicate our 'flaws' but we can reimagine them and turn them into tools to guide us. People in severe poverty are screwed because they cannot afford to spend their time with any concerns other than what is directly effecting them from moment to moment and because they likely lack a decent education.

Studies in Kerala showed a lot of promise in the effects of education young women. If we wish to reduce population growth then educating young women is the most effective way to do this. Of course there are still what some would consider unforeseen problems that arise from such rapid societal shifts:

https://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/bitstream/handle/20.500.12413/3053/wp341.pdf?sequence=1

I happen to be in the privileged position to have the time and energy to research numerous topics that interest me. I know most people don't and this is an issue of managing information - the economics of information (which is why this thread is interesting).

The most mind blowing thing to occur in our life times is not the computer or the internet. It is CRISPR ... it's not just that this technology has endless potential it is that it is incredibly cheap to boot! The answers to the climate problem will (in my mind) undoubtedly be littered with uses of CRISPR technology (be this is livestock alterations or through human alteration). With such world changing technologies comes a whole new swathe of problems and conjectures too.

Climate change doesn't really worry much tbh. Not that I think it is a trivial matter either.

convince me

If you're really getting your climate change information from Lomborg, you might as well go to Prager University. — Xtrix

By that I assume you mean you didn’t listen to what he says, ignored the data he presented and assume he’s a crackpot?

Note: He agrees with the data about how to deal with climate change NOT the politics. Sounds fine to me.

https://www.gapminder.org/tools/#$model$markers$bubble$encoding$y$data$concept=children_per_woman_total_fertility&space@=country&=time;;&scale$domain:null&zoomed:null&type:null;;;;;;&chart-type=bubbles&url=v1

@Xtrix You can find stuff here: https://www.gapminder.org/

This guy you've probably heard of: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDytm8jnpk

"Dooming" meaning what exactly?

The only solution to our ecological woes will be to transition to a non-growth, even a shrinking, economy. — Janus

I asked how this is viable. The reply was not given (avoided).

My point was that increasing the economic growth NOW will curb population growth (because it has everywhere) and improve living conditions (education and health) because it has everywhere. This is because people in poverty are not concerned about tomorrow because they're trying to survive - this is obvious.

When it comes to economics and resources the key factor regarding the ecology is to provide as many people as possible with cheap energy so they can more easily get out of poverty. The point being that burning more coal and gas in the short term is actually the best way to protect the ecology of the planet.

Negative growth will expand the population because when poverty increases the family unit increases in size - we know this it isn't a myth. The more developed economies in the world should be investing in improving more efficient energy options (nuclear for one) rather than feeding a broken mechanism that is going to do little to nothing in the long term.

If we wish to see the effects of an economic reduction we'll have all the evidence by looking at India (where 1 million a year die of starvation related causes prior to Covid). Now it is estimated that another 200 million will fall into poverty by the end of the year putting 50% of the entire population into poverty ... I don't see a 'shirking economy' as a viable solution for India. I see cheap fuel as a helping hand to those at the bottom.

That's kind of a a pointless point in the discussion we were having though.

Obviously.

If you have something to share about non-growth or shrinking economies that would be nice to hear.

A growing economy is viable and has been beneficial for larger and larger proportions of the human population as history has shown. As far as I see it the priority is to provide people with more, and better, education and resources.

I don't see how a shirking economy helps pull more people out of poverty that it puts into it (proportionally). I'm happy to look and learn though if you can provide details about this.

Why mention it as a solution then? Solutions tend to be at least partially viable if if they're framed as a solution.

I'm genuinely interested to learn about how a non-growth or shrinking economy will help.

I don’t believe that for a second because I know what is taught in economics and I know exactly how important the relation between economics and ecology is.

Your point was the population is an issue. It is. My point is that population growth reduces as GDP increases.

That is all.

The only solution to our ecological woes will be to transition to a non-growth, even a shrinking, economy. — Janus

How is that viable? Is it a realistic option? What happens to the poorest people in this process? What events in human history have raised living standards beyond mere survival?

One thread was asking if it was worthwhile engaging with deluded individuals like yourself— and the answer was in the affirmative, mostly for the benefit of others. — Xtrix

And you didn’t seem to learn much by the looks of it? Shame (in both ways)

Yes but you see how this argument is often used to justify massively disproportionate growth. — Xtrix

I see the kind of thing Janus is saying far more often. That is more disconcerting.

A good example is the 2017 tax cut. Yes, it’s true that middle class people got a modest (and temporary) cut to their taxes…but I think you know the rest. — Xtrix

No I don’t. The reason being I’m not from your country and don’t much care about what one single nation’s government does regarding taxes. I do know that the wealthiest nations (throughout history) always have the largest disparity when it comes to comparisons between the richest and the poorest.

None of this has anything to do with the point I made. The better the economy the lower the birthrate, the better the economy the more opportunities for individuals and the better the economy the more room for environmental concerns (because first and foremost people need to see the horizon before they care about what is over it).

You do at least understand that economics isn't merely about making money right?

Economists who ignore resources are not economists. Can you explain?

Humans are extraordinarily absurd beings. We have a kind of self-destructive streak. I actually think it is precisely this that allows us to step beyond out own perceived limitations and achieve what would previously been seen as ‘impossible’.

I don’t think you understand how economics works then - seems to be an epidemic of people who are clueless about this and they are actually the root of the problem.

Kind of ironic really.

If you truly cannot fathom/believe how the rich can get richer whilst the poorest of the poor also get richer then look at the history of economic growth on a global scale over the course of human history. As for teh population growth this decreases when poverty decreases so it is in everyone’s interest to expand economic growth not inhibit it.

Like I said, these kind of things can be quite counter intuitive as what we believe in our gut to be the ‘wrong’ focus quite often turns out to be the right one. Greed, guilt and avarice are generally perceived as ‘sins’ so keep an eye out for them. They will cause your destruction and everyone else’s if left unchecked … they often appear in the hearts of the do goobers and have far more power there.

Are you telling me everything you’ve ever done made perfect sense to you and you never thought it was the wrong or sub optimal choice? I say liar because humans do NOT always, or perhaps even mainly, act in a rational nor logical manner.

Some simple examples: Buying a lottery ticket, drug addict, hunger, poverty or love/sex.

Whenever we decide to do something we believe that what we are about to do actually does make sense. — Average

Speak for yourself! :D

@frank Turns out I’m wrong. I guess I’ve just heard him haro on about it so much I assumed it was his baby :D

I think you’ll find it’s the other way around. Daniel Dennett right? Or am I going slowly mad?

Basically he is asking is there anything to do with the perception of colour other than our sensory input. Clearly the answer is yes because we can see colours whereas once we couldn't.

How much this is due to experience or not is up for debate. I don't think the thought experiment does much for ideas of 'Qualia' OR pure forms of 'Physicalism'. It is an interesting thing to ponder though and makes us think about what we mean by colour and perception, as well as how perception and sensory input relate and amalgamate into a consciousness.

We would have a hard time saying the same thing about circular objects. Could Mary live in a room that only contained straight lines and sharp angles learn all there is to know about circles and not find anything astounding about the sight of a curved line outside of her straight lined and angled room? She could certainly make some attempts at imagining such (much like we can understand how a fourth dimensional space object may appear to us) but the 'learning' something new is irrelevant to the actual experience of. WE can read about riding a bike, watch people ride bikes and maybe even dream of riding bikes ... but that isn't riding a bike.

That is why I have an issue with how people approach this one sometimes.

But how would you describe the concept of color? Of red? — frank

I don't understand how that has anything to do with it? I can describe colours to congenially blind people by way of referring to others senses.

As with 'table' (for someone who has no concept of what a table is) I'd maybe go for it's use rather than it's physical appearance.

Mary would understand that there are different shades of things. She would know this. There are people who cannot see colour but can distinguish between colours by the shade and the item they are looking at (reds and greens) by experience. There is a professional photographer who takes colour photos even though she cannot see colour.

An actual real life report from stroke victims can open up a bit of a window into this problem. People who've had strokes don't understand (lose the ability to see colour) the concept of 'colour' yet when they 'recall' what colour is they see colour again.

I think this is much more about how we order and prioritise concepts. For example a table is not a table to people who have no use or need for tables. It is just an object of curiosity perhaps but they don't 'see' a table.

She specializes in the neurophysiology of vision and acquires, let us suppose, all the physical information there is to obtain about what goes on when we see ripe tomatoes, or the sky, and use terms like "red", "blue", and so on. She discovers, for example, just which wavelength combinations from the sky stimulate the retina, and exactly how this produces via the central nervous system the contraction of the vocal cords and expulsion of air from the lungs that results in the uttering of the sentence "The sky is blue". ... — frank

Too far fetched to make sense imo. I've never been fond of Dennett's Mary tbh. If all the 'physical information' is all the 'information' then what this has to do with actual subjective experience doesn't seem to be on the same plane.

Economic growth in poorer countries is basically how most problems are solved. This will often lead to greater 'super rich' people in countries already wealthy.

Often the actual practical ways to manage certain problems is fairly counter intuitive.

Nihilists and buddhists have a lot in common.

Tests would lead to workers having to go home too frequently and so production would drop — Isaac

The test takes 15-30 mins. I stated that if employees were willing to show up early and take the test before work then it would be a way around the issue for those who feel that taking the vaccine isn't in their best interest.

This, in place for people with medical reasons for not taking the vaccine would make perfect sense too rather than just expecting them not to work at all.

I'm still perplexed about the distinction between someone not wishing to take the vaccine and someone with religious reasons for not taking the vaccine. If we're applying reason and rationality in this case how do we allow one rule for religious persons and another for non-religious persons. This is being applied in the US military tbh (as in by 'law' dismissing someone for their chosen career). Just to buff this up I wouldn't say joining the army is sensible in terms of your personal rights but they exist in terms of religious distinction.