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.

I have some background in Early Buddhism, so it's easy to for me to think about suffering, but I can now better appreciate people who don't have such a background and how they approach the problem of suffering. — baker

What do you mean 'some background'. You were brought up as a buddhist? How does that make it easier to think about suffering?

It's true that trust in authority, especially institutional authority, is at an all time low. That's across the board, and well documented: media, government, business, academia. We're skeptical of politicians, religious leaders, corporate leaders, advertisements, salesmen, teachers, scientists, doctors, pollsters -- and even our neighbors. — Xtrix

That doesn't sound like anything other than the status quo. I would say there is far more hype due to mass media and more access to poor/pseudo reports though.

People's lives are so crappy, despite having followed all the rules and done all the "right" things, that they're rightfully distrustful and looking for something or someone to blame. — Xtrix

Again, compared to when? I think people generally look to blame others as it helps to ignore personal faults that we wish not to face.

A good example of this is polling. If a poll reflects what we want to believe, we "trust" it -- it's accurate. — Xtrix

No, I don't think so. I think a comedian put this across well regarding surveys and such. Normal people usually don't waste time answering surveys. They are poor reflections of society as a whole.

Do we not have an epistemic responsibility in life? If our actions have ripple effects, and our actions are largely an outgrowth of our beliefs, then isn't it irresponsible to believe in things that lead to harmful actions? Shouldn't we be more careful about what we believe in? — Xtrix

Some people don't care (or simply cannot afford to care) about political nuances. Others are apathetic, and others overly enthused.

I'm not convinced that people 'act out' their beliefs either. I think it was Schopenhauer (maybe Rousseau?) that made a comical statement about people saying one thing and doing another.

I think this is one to keep at the forefront of our minds:

“The fundamental cause of the trouble in the modern world today is that the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.”—Bertrand Russell.

When it comes to 'following'/agreeing with someone or something I just ask myself if I can find fault in something they say. If I cannot find any fault I assume I am wrong because I've missed something. I seek out points that oppose me rather than ignore them (or so I like to believe!). This is basically along the lines of what Russell states. If I cannot find a flaw then I must be missing something. Any idea that I cannot oppose I am EXTREMELY wary of.

Do we not have an epistemic responsibility in life? — Xtrix

I would prefer to ask 'Do we have an epistemic responsibility in life?' simply because it is clearer. That is how I attempt 'responsibility' - through attempts at clarity where it seems to prevent misinterpretation.

I think this is an intriguing question. I have said I few times in my life that I care about what people think but I don't much care what they think about me.

When a physicist discovers something that throws out mainstream thinking people are excited. I try to foster this attitude towards life in general as what most refer to as 'seeking happiness' is just this I feel. the elation I gain from struggling over a certain problem is a very strange kind of elation. It is as if it has 'pain' in it yet when there is a crack of a breakthrough all that 'pain' turns out not to be 'painful' at all and I was just fooling myself into thinking I was 'frustrated,' 'angry' or 'upset'.

I prefer to express this thought more with another quote:

“The sacred tree, the sacred stone are not adored as stone or tree they are worshipped precisely because they are hierophanies, because they show something that is no longer stone or tree but sacred, the ganz andere or 'wholly other.”

- Mircea Eliade

This 'wholly other' is very much a part of human experience - or rather our conflict with, or avoidance of, it. 'Trust' - in respect it your item of driving - is not at the forefront of our minds in the moment. We don't expect drivers to make up their own rules. Our world is made up of 'driving rules' and if one was to travel to another country where things are a little different we will feel that 'they are wrong' and 'we are right' simply because our world view (in terms of driving) opposes theirs. They are 'stupid' and we are 'right'. This a perfectly natural reaction to an alien system because what is effectively being brought into question is our core founding of how the world around operates and is formed (I prefer the term/s Weltanschauung or Axis Mundi here). Some things we simply don't question like a balls rolling down hills instead of up hills or not sinking into the pavement. There are different levels of extremity as I see it that we parcel up as 'wrong' instead of taking the opportunity to broaden our horizons and learn more about the world we're about.

Judgement is great. Being judgmental is usually self deceit. We're all prone to erring but that isn't an excuse for mistakes it is something should be willing to bring to the table when in a discussion with people we don't agree with or understand.

justice insists that what one person deserves for a given action be the same as for another. — Banno

Slavery for all! It is ‘just’. If you litter the streets then slavery! It is just and deserv … wait a minute!? You call it ‘punishment’ and I call it ‘cost’. It’s basic economics from my perspective. Nothing comes for free - especially freedom.

It appears I misunderstood the point of the OP so this is a side issue.

When it comes to equality I’m in the camp of equality of opportunity not equality of outcome. The boxes picture is a nice twee analogy but in other situations it can be less than easy to agree (especially when defining ‘justice’ based on identity groups).

immaturity

Everyone knows what it is to suffer and that doesn't need 'defining'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yq-Fw7C26Y

I find it ironic that this is the hill mostly conservative people want to die on when it comes to corporate power. — Xtrix

Er … what?

Btw I grew up in a country where paying for medical care was not something anyone really considered doing so maybe asking someone to pay for such themselves doesn’t quite sit as well with me as it does with you. Either way, a test would resolve the issue and as the vaccine isn’t infallible why not just test everyone every day if the concern is so great.

We’re not going to agree here so no point in continuing. You’ve shown your hand now and we’re clearly not playing the same game.

Okay, I’ll just stand aside then and listen. Thanks for clarifying where I had got the wrong end of the stick :)

As opposed to imprisoning someone even? Nah. Sorry. The payment for one’s actions comes in one form or another. The ‘justness’ of such is dependent upon the severity of the crime/fault committed.

Also, someone could willingly become a slave. I’m sure you’ve read Aristotle on this. The situation could very well be beneficial to both but in the way we frame the picture of ‘being a slave’ today is probably skewed more toward unjust slavery not slavery as a whole.

In the sense that when we ask is slavery good or bad in the general way most people refer to it I’d say it is clearly bad. Unjust? That depends if and only if it has bee dealt out unjustly otherwise we could then find ourselves calling any punishment for any crime ‘unjust’ (which it may well be but I doubt that would gain much traction with many folk).

If you look at Crowley through the lens of Jung and Nietzsche he probably won't look quite as decadent. I kind of view Alan Moore as what Crowley could've been.

Anyway, we're straying WAY off topic here .. my bad :D

Considering myself a pagan — Michael Zwingli

I don't think that means anything in the way you've framed it. The 'pagan' religion isn't a separate entity but rather an amalgam of ideas based on some belief in a common origin (Indo European heritage of ideas/concepts), but in the more New Age modernised Western form it is more or less an attempt at doing something like outlining a common system in human behavior.

The actual event of 'Magick,' as Crowley termed it, is something very much more about memory systems, understanding and 'manipulating' (so to speak) oneself and some psychological tricks along the way that help all these things work together.

Witchcraft and/or Wicca and such are sometimes labelled as 'pagan' but I'm not entirely sure that makes any sense as 'paganism' is a term for a vast array of religious idea outside of Christianity and absorbed by Christianity.

The underlying principle of Occultism in general appears to be the understanding that one's cosmological view (or mythos) can be shaped like a piece of clay. Generally people don't do this kind of thing because it is classed as 'insanity' and such, and others merely 'play' at practicing such techniques and are simply idiotic or foolhardy.

I think the closest 'accepted' approximation of such a practice would be with Carl Jung and something he termed 'Active Imagination'. Other instances in history would come from the likes of Giordano Bruno (very strong tie to mnemonic systems there), and there are more recent investigations into such memory techiniques and ways to read knowledge via myths and rituals (children's rhymes, songs and dances).

The whole area is quite fascinating and too often brushed under the 'whacko' carpet sadly. Francis Yates did some brilliant scholarly work in this area.

Does that mean we can answer it? — Srap Tasmaner

It means that the spanner fitfully wakes under the duress of upper, downy hairs' delight ... a perfectly reasonable sentence grammatically but semantically useless.

What is the shape of a circle?

Where do we put the Moon when it rains?

Do balls roll down hills?

How do people carry eggs between their legs when they don't lay eggs?

Do I have two eyes in my head?

All grammatically correct but utterly useless if taken seriously.

Do we have the right to procreate? (see directly above)