We didn't invent general relativity, we discovered these fundamental functions of reality, and we invented concepts to be able to calculate, measure and harness those functions. — Christoffer

They said the same thing about the universal gravitation theory of Isaac Newton. Until it was superseded by a better theory: Einstein's. What makes you certain that GR won't be discarded as incomplete or imperfect in the future?

I don't think you understand what mathematical logic is or that math as a language wasn't invented by us, but instead, is a language derived from that logic. — Christoffer

I am aware of this theory.

General relativity didn't get invented, it was discovered and communicated within science through the language of math. It's verified with technology that acts upon these laws of nature — Christoffer

That there exist laws of nature is debated. But we know for sure that certain human beings historically did put together the concepts, the math and the interpretation of General Relativity. They did not receive those things from the gods.

Algorithmic AI does not have the function of emulating humans, it has a specific function and purpose based on statistical math and probability-based self-learning. What you are talking about is like saying we build a construction crane to emulate a human arm through human consciousness, it makes no sense.

If the AI is built to detect a very specific particle that is predicted by mathematical physics equations and detected by a non-bias detector, there's no human emulation whatsoever involved with that process. — Christoffer

Except your experiment is set up, designed by a human being, the theoretical framework underpinning the experiment (eg here QM) is human too, and the AI was built by humans.

Reminds me of lyrics from The Boss. — Pie

Big fan here.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/489830

Your position is obviously support to Ukraine's war effort since starting on this thread. — boethius

Fair enough. And what has been your position then, if not support to Russia's war effort?

Why would it emulate a human scientist? — Christoffer

Because it would be built and programmed by a human scientist to emulate a human scientist. Why would it NOT do what it is built to do, ie emulate a human scientist?

If possible, perhaps those who didn't want to fight could be allowed to leave the country entirely, as a kind of compromise. "You don't have to kill/die for us, but we don't have to kill/die for you either." — Pie

Good point. That was more or less what happened with those Americans who fled to Canada because they didn't want to go to Vietnam.

Stop trying to derail the thread with your insults and condescension.

However, Isaac has made a more complete retort to the core moral issue — boethius

You would do well to take your distance with lower IQ, hit-and-miss posters, such as Isaac. He is only misleading you, here as well as elsewhere. For you see, my argument with Tzeench for EU and US support the Ukrainian war effort was not a moral case at all. I am not saying that the Ukrainians have some sort of moral right to indefinite Western assistance -- such a moral position would be naïve in this particular instance.

Mine is a pragmatist, real politics-based position. I am saying that it makes perfect strategic sense for the US and EU to weaken expansionist Russia, if the Ukrainians are willing to fight. I trust you will agree to that, even if you may try, tactically here, to paint this proxy war approach in negative moral terms, and to wax some ethical veneer on your own cynicism.

Mmmokay. But if the Ukrainians decide to vie for a truce, i'm fine with that.

So NATO should support war with supplying arms ... but that's not a case for war? — boethius

It's a case for the US and EU to support the Ukrainian war effort, for as long as they need it.

If Ukraine achieved a decisive battle field victory, or Russia did collapse and retreat begging for sanctions to be lifted, would you really be hedging your language now? Or would be be running internet victory laps. — boethius

Of course I would plead for a rapid end to the sanctions, if Moscow gives adequate assurances that it will mend its ways.

↪Tzeentch Taking care of the Russian threat for a generation is well worth the price.
— Olivier5

Seems pretty strong support for the war ... and that it's well worth the price of the dead so far. — boethius

Not really, because this comment was made in the context of a discussion with @Tzeentch about NATO and the EU, to whom it pertains.

This comment of mine did not pertain to the Ukrainians. It's not for me to say if their sacrifice is worth it. They alone can decide on whether or not they should fight, or vie for a truce.

So I am saying this: given that the Ukrainians have decided to fight rather than surrender, and given their relative success so far in doing so, whatever the EU and US spend in support of the Ukrainian side appears to me well worth the price the EU and US are paying, if it helps humbling the Kremlin's militaristic ambitions for a generation.

You've clearly argued that Ukrainians should fight — boethius

Where did I do so?

You both derailed the thread by getting into a condescending insult spiral. — fdrake

I might steal this.

"Sea ice" you should say; Greenland ice will take a little longer to melt, fortunately. — unenlightened

That's correct. Thanks for the precision.

Capital markets are wise enough to build a facility and entice us with the promise of jobs to take out mortgages on places they know full well are going to become worthless and uninhabitable. "We" will be taught to think it our own folly and to trust the wisdom of the market. — unenlightened

:up:

'This' being what, may I ask?

Fastest growing US cities risk becoming unlivable from climate crisis
Some of the cities enjoying population boom are among those gripped by a ferocious heatwave and seeing record temperatures

Oliver Milman, The Guardian, Wed 20 Jul 2022 10.00 BST

The ferocious heatwave that is gripping much of the US south and west has highlighted an uncomfortable, ominous trend – people are continuing to flock to the cities that risk becoming unlivable due to the climate crisis.

Some of the fastest-growing cities in the US are among those being roasted by record temperatures that are baking more than 100 million Americans under some sort of extreme heat warning. More than a dozen wildfires are engulfing areas from Texas to California and Alaska, with electricity blackouts feared for places where the grid is coming under severe strain.

San Antonio, Texas, which added more to its population than any other US city in the year to July 2021, has already had more than a dozen days over 100F this summer and hit 104F on Tuesday.

Phoenix, Arizona, second on the population growth rankings compiled by the US census, also hit 104F on Tuesday and has suffered a record number of heat-related deaths this year. Meanwhile, Fort Worth, Texas, third on the population growth list, has a “red flag” warning in place amid temperatures that have reached 109F this week.

Cities that stretch across the “sun belt” of the southern and south-western US have in recent years enjoyed population booms, with people lured by the promise of cheap yet expansive properties, warm winters and plentiful jobs, with several large corporations shifting their bases to states with low taxes and cheaper cost of living.

But this growth is now clashing with the reality of the climate emergency, with parts of the sun belt enduring the worst drought in more than 1,000 years, record wildfires and punishing heat that is triggering a range of medical conditions, as well as excess deaths.

“There’s been this tremendous amount of growth and it’s come with a cost,” said Jesse Keenan, an expert in climate adaption at Tulane University. Keenan pointed out that since the 1990s several states have gutted housing regulations to spur development that has now left several cities, such as in Scottsdale, Arizona, struggling to secure enough water to survive.

“The deregulation is really catching up with communities and they are paying that price today,” Keenan said. “We are seeing places run out of water, no proper subdivision controls to ensure there are enough trees to help lower the heat, and lots of low-density suburbs full of cars that create air pollution that only gets worse in hot weather. We’ve reached a crunch point.”

The sprawl of concrete for new housing, mostly within unspooling suburbs rather than contained in dense, walkable neighborhoods, has helped heighten temperatures in many of these growing cities. The spread of hard surfaces has also led to flash flooding, as Houston found to its cost during the devastating Hurricane Harvey in 2017.

Some cities have attempted to respond to the rising temperatures by planting trees, which help cool the surrounding area, and provide emergency centers where people can cool down, but these efforts are often piecemeal and underfunded, according to Sara Meerow, an expert in urban planning at Arizona State University.

“The extreme heat that cities are experiencing now is caused by a combination of climate change and the urban heat island effect,” Meerow said. “Rapid urban expansion, which means more impervious surfaces like roads and buildings and waste heat from cars and buildings, typically exacerbates the urban heat island effect, which means these cities are even hotter.”

As the US, like the rest of the world, continues to heat up, the climate crisis should become more of a factor when choosing a place to live, with retirees already starting to shun Arizona, traditionally a favored spot for older transplants, according to Keenan.

“We are looking at increased premature mortality, even increased diabetes because of dehydration, cardiac impacts and so on,” he said. “Mortgage lenders are starting to look at the risks of lending for somewhere that doesn’t have a water supply, as that’s not a good investment. Capital markets are getting wise to this stuff.

“We are seeing the limits to growth and housing affordability and the impacts of poor-quality decision making of where and how to build. We are paying the price for all that now.”

Of all the evils of government, forcing individuals to kill and die is by far the worst. — Tzeentch

I would think that the worse a government can do is kill a whole lot of people. Like waging a war of aggression, or committing a genocide, or anihilating the chances of survival of future generations.

What's that got to do with the OP? — Isaac

The Russian aggression of Ukraine is literally mentioned in the OP. How could it be irrelevant to it?

So how could you possibly read that and think the thread was about whether and when a government might use conscription? — Isaac

Because the OP speaks about that too. You should try and be a better reader.

In any case, I think now you agree that a government can do far worse than conscription. Like it can bomb folks.

Even its own folks like they did in Chechnya.

Icebergs. That's why. Icebergs breaking away and migrating farther to other oceans and melting, causing changes in oceanic patterns which then causes the oceans to absorb excess CO2 from the atmosphere. The resulting cooling effect triggers the ice age. — L'éléphant

I think you are telling yourself fairy tales, perhaps because you are too afraid to face the truth. At current melt rate the northern hemisphere won't have any permanent ice by 2040, 2050 at the latest.

But it cannot go on indefinitely so as to stop the glacial cycle. — L'éléphant

I don't see why not.

There's no harm in discussing it. — Tate

I have come to the (easy) conclusion that you are here to disinform people. Personally i see CC disinformation spreading as a crime against humanity. So I think you should be banned from TPF, if not hanged up.

1. Where did I make the claim that a government cannot do worse things than conscripting people? — Isaac

Oh, that's easy. Here:

I can't even think of a non-choice imposition a government makes on free, innocent adults at all, let alone one which carries such a high cost. — Isaac

2. How is being bombed worse then being shot/tortured? — Isaac

I never said it was. You are trying to misunderstand me.

3. What has any of this got to do with the grounds on which s government conscripts (you know, the actual topic)? — Isaac

The link is that governments often resort conscription once another nation starts to attack and bomb them and their citizens. For example, that's what Ukraine did. Do you understand? This is a bit of a subtle point.

Olivier5 are passionate about their case for war, — boethius

i don't think I have argued the case of war, i have just observed that the call for peace negotiations is part of the war. Posters whining here that there are no peace negociations are only repeating uncritically the propaganda of the Kremlin.

The living planet is not self regulating. — unenlightened

:up:

I can't even think of a non-choice imposition a government makes on free, innocent adults at all, let alone one which carries such a high cost. — Isaac

This position is precisely what I was responding to: a government can obviously do far worse than conscription: it can bomb folks.

You did say you couldn't think of a more costly non-choice imposition a government can make on free, innocent adults. Now you can think of one: bombing folks out of the blue, like Russia is doing.

So bombing is justified? That sounds a little sociopathic to me. — Isaac

That would be because of your perverse narcissism, a form of sociopathy where the diseased tries to calm his inferiority complex by putting down others.

I never said bombing was good, I siad it was worse than conscription. You asked for something worse than conscription, that a government can do. I gave that to you: a war of agression, bombing people out of the blue like Russia is doing, is worse than conscription.

Another thing worse than conscription IMO, that governments can do, is climate change denial, as done by many US governments over the years.

I'm sure you get the point. — L'éléphant

The point I get is that natural insolation will not be cancelling the impacts of man-made global warming. Another point is in the tittle: ice age, interrupted. Compare with:

Tate's "ice age" (defined by the presence of ice caps) is ending. Because of us. -- Olivier5

So your article agrees with me, or rather, my take on CC is far closer to current science than Tate's crypto-denialism.

As for metronomes... sometimes they break. Gime a sledgehammer and a metronome, and I'll show you how it might happen. The metronome is our climate, the sledgehammer is greenhouse gases.

Taxation is not an impositions at all, it's the government collecting its legal property. — Isaac

Nope, it's how the state pays for public goods, such as national defense.

I thought of a more costly non-choice imposition a government can make on free, innocent adults: bomb them, like the Russians are doing to the Ukrainians.

If you don't want to pay taxes, don't earn above the tax threshold.

Now what am I supposed to do if I don't want to be conscripted. Change age? — Isaac

Even the poorest pay the VAT tax though.

To avoid having to kill people, there is always the possibility of conscientious objection.

During WW1, and perhaps many other wars, conscripts would shoot their own fingers off, break an arm or some other self injury to avoid being on the front.

Good, because it is not meant to be.

I can't even think of a non-choice imposition a government makes on free, innocent adults at all, let alone one which carries such a high cost. — Isaac

Taxation would be the obvious candidate.

I can't even think of a non-choice imposition a government makes on free, innocent adults at all, let alone one which carries such a high cost. — Isaac

Taxation would be the obvious candidate.

The question is why the government forcibly imposes its conclusion on that weighing exercise when it doesn't do so in many other far less impactful decisions. — Isaac

Like what decisions?

A government may need to impose general conscription for the same reason than it may impose taxation: so as to avoid free wheelers having access to a public good they don't pay for.

National defense is a collective good, which means it is non-excludable: the benefits that a given person derives from national defense do not depend on that individual’s contribution to the effort. Everyone benefits, including those who don't contribute to the cost in blood or treasure.

The oddity the OP is picking up on is that in the case of war, the decision (of literally life and death magnitude) is not only removed from any democratic process, but removed from personal choice too. — Isaac

Not really. People can volunteer to fight in Ukraine, and they do, so it's not like it's totally removed from personal choice.

But as it stands, the movement usually doesn't deliver, because I think at base it's a bit confused and can't seem to decide between being a real political player that wants to shape current society, and being this impractical back-to-nature fantasy that can't be realised. It probably should let go of the latter, but then that is what seems to appeal to a lot of people. — ChatteringMonkey

I couldn't agree more. It's a newish political ideology and as such, very fractious still, a bit like communism was in its infancy. It hasn't gelled around some practical consensus yet.

France is generally a bit less 'fanatic', — ChatteringMonkey

I think France is just fanatic about other things than Germany... :-)

The politics are very different. Clearly the Germans have a much stronger green movement than we do. Sometime it has led them to some pretty absurd decisions like foregoing nuclear energy.

The French greens are quite pathetic, I must say. Historically their only strong and politically smart leader has been Dany Cohn-Bendit, who is... Franco-German!

I do think we (French) should do better there, but ecology can also turn into a political ideology, as fractious and divisive as any which is very much the problem with the French green party.