You have either failed or not even tried to get to grips with my ideas. — karl stone

Here's an analogy which may help explain my focus in this thread.

Let's say a religious person starts a thread where they want to debate Bible verse interpretations. To them, the Bible is the word of God so, to them, understanding what the verses mean is very important.

You could join them in debating the real meaning of all the verses in the Bible, a process likely to take the rest of your life. Or, you could efficiently end run around all that unnecessary work by asking them to prove the Bible is the word of God. That is, you could take the focus up a level to the assumption which all of their other arguments are based upon. If they can't defend that foundational assumption, then all arguments derived from that assumption can be set aside.

In this thread you're like the religious person who wants us to limit our focus to the level you're comfortable with. You want us to accept as a matter of faith as you do that technology is the solution, and then discuss/debate your particular technology idea.

I'm not doing that because it's a waste of time, because...

1) Your ideas are poorly conceived and you aren't willing to address specific challenges to those ideas I've repeatedly presented to you.

2) There's no point to examining 10,000 different technological solutions until we first determine if this is at heart actually a technical problem.

Perhaps you are new to philosophy forums, but FYI this is what happens in such places. Somebody presents some idea, and everybody else typically tries to rip it to shreds. Please notice that this very same thing happened in my knowledge thread, and in fact happens in most threads whoever started them. As Harry Truman once sort of said, if you can't stand the heat, perhaps philosophy forums are not the right kind of kitchen for you.

Again, you seem to be suffering from the consistent illusion that this thread belongs to you personally. It actually belongs to the forum owner and his team of mods, who are the sole authority on what is appropriate in any thread. Even your own posts don't belong to you in the sense that the mods can delete them at any time for any reason. So please try to get over the notion that this is your house and you make the rules.

My argument is difficult to understand. It suggests a mistake made 400 years ago, in our relationship to science, has had lasting consequences. It requires bearing in mind a distinction between science as truth, and science merely as a basis for technology. Understanding what I'm saying actually requires doing philosophy - that is, holding a set of premises in mind to compare to the current situation to suggest an alternate rationale and course of action. But you haven't understood, or even remembered those premises. Indeed, it's difficult to believe you even read them. — karl stone

You've repeated this many times. It's nothing more than a vague notion that if we all somehow become rational as defined by you then these problems will all be solved. That might be true, but there is no chance of that actually happening any time soon. This idea is equivalent to the notion that if we all became Christians then the world would be a wonderful place. Maybe that's true too, but it's never going to happen. So let's stop wasting time on such dreaminess.

Understanding all that is necessary to understanding why technology should be applied as directed by science; a principle we can prove by considering the very nature of life — karl stone

As directed by science. Who exactly are you referring to? Science exists only in the mind of human beings, so you need to point us to the specific human beings who will implement this science in the manner which you feel will "save the world". Who are they? What are their names?

What I see are a millions of smart scientists with good intentions who are ardently determined to give humanity more power than we can successfully manage. They aren't evil, they're just dense when it comes to understanding the implications of a "more is better" relationship with knowledge. Technically they are living in the 21st century, philosophically they are stuck in the 19th century.

You keep saying "technology should be applied as directed by science". Science is just a concept, so science will not be directing technology. HUMAN BEINGS will be directing technology. Which human beings are you referring to specifically?

To dismiss my argument again and again as some simplistic 'more is better' approach is insulting — karl stone

I'm dismissing your argument because...

1) It need not be addressed until the philosophical foundation of your arguments is proven to be valid.

2) Your arguments are weak.

3) You don't respond to specific challenges presented to your specific proposals.

4) YOU DON'T OWN THIS THREAD.

Karl, you are obsessed with hydrogen! Take the simplest possible approach. Your plan is too complicated, too rococo, too many parts, processes, and potential problems. — Bitter Crank

I am obsessed with hydrogen - that's true, but the rest isn't true. There are good reasons for the particular application of technologies I suggested. Not least of these is the availability of sunlight and sea water. Using these to produce hydrogen (and fresh water) solves both the battery problem, and the transmission loss problem.

There is sun enough and land which is now, and will remain in the future unproductive. These locations are often near or are the same places that a lot of people live. Put the square kms of solar panels there, and supply the needs for energy at hand. For instance, California (39 million people) has desert land near their large population centers. Texas (28 million) has both sunshine and consistently windy highlands. — Bitter Crank

So, let us say you produce energy from solar power in the desert. How do you utilize it? It has to be transmitted for many miles, and transmission loss can be significant - upto 10% of power per kilometer. It cannot be used to produce fresh water, because it's in the desert, and so you've occupied land, that in theory, could be irrigated and inhabitable - if you produced energy where you could also produce fresh water, and hydrogen fuel.

There are good reasons for the particular application of technologies I suggested. — karl stone

How do we mortgage an asset which can never be used, and thus has no value?

How do we protect large scale solar array installations on the surface of stormy oceans?

Which specific human beings will save the world by implementing your vision of "science as truth"?

Here's an analogy which may help explain my focus in this thread. Let's say a religious person starts a thread where they want to debate Bible verse interpretations. — Jake

Okay. Go on...

You could join them in debating the real meaning of all the verses in the Bible, a process likely to take the rest of your life. Or, you could efficiently end run around all that unnecessary work by asking them to prove the Bible is the word of God. — Jake

It's rude and off topic. Crashing into someone else's thread with a vaguely related idea - contrary to the stated aim of the thread, is exactly what I'd call that - and it's exactly what you're doing here.

In this thread you're like the religious person who wants us to limit our focus to the level you're comfortable with. You want us to accept as a matter of faith as you do that technology is the solution, and then discuss/debate your particular technology idea. — Jake

I just want to discuss the proposal I started this thread to discuss - something you've refused to do.

Again, you seem to be suffering from the consistent illusion that this thread belongs to you personally. It actually belongs to the forum owner and his team of mods, who are the sole authority on what is appropriate in any thread. — Jake

Thanks for the tip!

How do we mortgage an asset which can never be used, and thus has no value? — Jake

Who says it can never be used? There may come a time in the future when it will be necessary to burn fossil fuels to regulate the climate in the opposite way - and if we can keep them in the ground now, that will be an option available to us. And, they are currently assets - which, once mortgaged to the world, do not need to have an ongoing commercial value.

How do we protect large scale solar array installations on the surface of stormy oceans? — Jake

I'd suggest a submersible design.

Which specific human beings will save the world by implementing your vision of "science as truth"? — Jake

Not you! If that's what you were wondering. Beyond that, I don't know what you're asking for. Names and addresses?

It's rude and off topic. Crashing into someone else's thread with a vaguely related idea - contrary to the stated aim of the thread, is exactly what I'd call that - and it's exactly what you're doing here. — karl stone

The premise of this thread which does not belong to you is that this is a technical problem requiring a technical solution. You appear to accept this premise as a matter of faith. You appear to be demanding that we do as well. But not all of us are actually members of the science religion. Some of us may decline to accept the premise "this is a technical problem" as a matter of faith. Some of us may wish to challenge that premise.

You want to draw a tight little circle around the subject to confine it to the narrow zone which you personally are comfortable with. Ok, you are free to do that within your own posts. The rest of us are under no obligation to confine our analysis of the situation to the tight little circle which you prefer.

The real world is also under no obligation to accept the boundaries of your tight little circle. In the real world, human beings will implement whatever solutions are chosen, and they will do so in the midst of many competing agendas such as ego, political power, profit etc. All these different realms are connected and will all feed in to whatever the final outcome is. Your tight little circle is a creation of your imagination.

Who says it can never be used? There may come a time in the future when it will be necessary to burn fossil fuels to regulate the climate in the opposite way — karl stone

And you're going to somehow get someone to lend us money using this utterly vague very long term asset as collateral? Is that the plan? Where will you find such investors? Are you going to invest your own personal funds in this project? No way, right?

Beyond that, I don't know what you're asking for. Names and addresses? — karl stone

My wording was insufficient, rhetorical excess, apologies, will try again.

My point was, science is not going to manage technology, because science exists only as a collection of ideas. Human beings are going to manage technology. Thus, you face the burden of explaining how human beings in the real world will acquire the Mr. Spock level of detached objectivity which your "science as truth" plan seems to require.

My argument is that even if we limit the discussion to scientists, ignoring politicians and all other inconvenient people, scientists do not possess this Mr. Spock level of detached objectivity. Instead, like all human beings, their primary interest is in their own situation. They get paid to develop knowledge, and so they understandably reject any notion of limiting knowledge development.

And in the real world, there will be many more humans involved than just the scientists. Technology funding is arises out of a political process which is infected with many competing agendas which have nothing to do with "science as truth". And then there's the public, the source of the funding, who probably wants technology funding to be applied to improving surfboards and ipads.

Welcome to the real world, where the "science as truth" concept which is at the heart of your proposals goes swirling, swirling, swirling down the toilet bowl.

In order for the ideas presented in your opening post to be relevant to the problem you are addressing, all of the above has to be ignored. You want us to ignore it. I chose not to. Get used to it.

I just want to discuss the proposal I started this thread to discuss - something you've refused to do. — karl stone

Whenever I attempt to inspect those specific ideas with specific questions, you find the inspection inconvenient and either ignore the questions completely, or blow them off with a quick sentence. I think it just might be you who is refusing to discuss your ideas.

The premise of this thread which does not belong to you is that this is a technical problem requiring a technical solution. You appear to accept this premise as a matter of faith. You appear to be demanding that we do as well. But not all of us are actually members of the science religion. Some of us may decline to accept the premise "this is a technical problem" as a matter of faith. Some of us may wish to challenge that premise. — Jake

No. The premise of this thread is - the particular approach I argue is necessary to save the world, and I want to talk about it. Something you've refused to do - as evidence by the fact you think I'm saying this is a technical problem. It's a philosophical problem - i.e. a failure to recognize scientific method as the means to establish valid knowledge of reality. From this follows a failure to grant scientific knowledge the authority it rightfully owns. This explains the subsequent misapplication of technology; explains how and why we have created these problems, and why, despite availability of better technologies, we refuse to deploy them.

And now, the rest of your ridiculously long post is irrelevant.

Whenever I attempt to inspect those specific ideas with specific questions, you find the inspection inconvenient and either ignore the questions completely, or blow them off with a quick sentence. I think it just might be you who is refusing to discuss your ideas. — Jake

Not at all. I'm quite happy to discuss what I've actually proposed, but that's not what you're doing. You dismiss my arguments as scientific religion, and then attack that strawman. You think I'm saying more is better, and attack that. When I explain that's not what I'm saying, you flat out contradict me, insist that what you think I'm saying is what I'm saying, and then repeat yourself. Again, attacking the same STRAWMAN.

So, let us say you produce energy from solar power in the desert. How do you utilize it? It has to be transmitted for many miles, and transmission loss can be significant - up to 10% of power per kilometer. — karl stone

I was an English major, so this is way out of my field, but I think you are referencing losses at low voltage. Transmission across long distances is at very high voltage, and losses are low -- less than 10% over long distances. The very high voltage of long distance transmission is stepped way down for distribution to consumers, and the stepping-down occurs in substations not very far from users.

In much of the world, there would be no need to locate solar plants far from users. Indeed, if the solar panels are on one's roof, or near one's urban area, transmission won't be a problem.

The premise of this thread is - the particular approach I argue is necessary to save the world, and I want to talk about it. — karl stone

And that particular approach is a technical approach. And you chose a technical approach because you see climate change as a technical problem requiring a technical solution.

It's a philosophical problem - i.e. a failure to recognize scientific method as the means to establish valid knowledge of reality. — karl stone

And in order for this failure to be remedied human beings from the broad voting public, in to the political class, and on to the scientists and engineers, will all have to become far more rational than today and buy in to your "science as truth" religion.

You've failed to provide any evidence that such a thing is possible. You're just chanting a dogma, much as a Christian might chant, "when everyone is Christian the world will be saved!" Without evidence to support the notion that such a radical transformation might take place you aren't doing philosophy or reason, you're doing ideology, a kind of "science religion". That is, by your own actions you're illustrating how illusory such a imagined transformation is.

This explains the subsequent misapplication of technology; explains how and why we have created these problems, and why, despite availability of better technologies, we refuse to deploy them. — karl stone

We refuse to deploy your particular technologies because you've not made a convincing credible case that they are at all realistic. Your ponzi scheme-like funding mechanism has no chance of happening, thus this entire thread is irrelevant.

With the exception that you are demonstrating for us why it's reasonable to question the technological fix paradigm. We had various problems, so we invented the industrial revolution, which gave us climate change. If your scheme worked, the economy would take off like a rocket causing us to chew through other finite resources at an ever faster pace, accelerating species extinction etc. Each technological solution generates another, bigger, crisis. The problem gets moved from one box to another, but it never gets solved.

Because it's not at heart a technical problem, no matter how much the technologists want it to be.

When I explain that's not what I'm saying, you flat out contradict me, insist that what you think I'm saying is what I'm saying, and then repeat yourself. — karl stone

Yes, that's it. I understand what you're saying better than you do. I get that having this revealed to the world in print is annoying to you, and I do regret the dent your ego is experiencing, but again, this is a philosophy forum, and that's what happens in such places.

You want to be an enthusiastic member of a reason religion, but you don't yet quite get how inconvenient reason can be. It's like the religious person who gets all wound up in their faith, before it dawns on them that their faith is going to demand things of them that they aren't ready to do.

Whether reason religion, or regular religion, it's all very exciting and inspiring, if we don't get what the price tag is.

Is that a yes or a no? — Jake

It’s a your question is idiotic. So many other potential developments would need to proceed bioengineering becoming child’s play that it’s silly to consider.

Ok, yes, as I suspected. You're not actually interested in the topic, you're interested in debating. You don't want to answer a simple yes or no question about WHAT YOU WANT because you fear that doing so will put you at some debate disadvantage.

Not a crime, but not interesting either.

Not at all. I'm quite happy to discuss what I've actually proposed — karl stone

How are you going to fund what you've actually proposed?

You give sound bite answers to this, while investing post after post after post in expressing how dented your ego feels etc.

Okay, Jake, do I want my neighbor to create a life form in his garage that will rapidly decompose plastic into environmentaly beneficial material? Yes.

I trust you’ll have an interesting response to this.

Okay, Jake, do I want my neighbor to create a life form in his garage that will rapidly decompose plastic into environmentaly beneficial material? Yes. — praxis

Thank you.

I want that too.

And so the next question becomes, are we willing to pay the price tag for what we both want?

If your neighbor can do something that impressive, what could a team of well funded terrorists do with the same technology? If they wipe out the human race or collapse civilization, either with intent or by mistake, do you still care about what's happening with plastic?

The problem we should be focused on is the issue of scale.

WWII is a good example. Conventional explosives, even when used with wild abandon over large areas, just aren't powerful enough to crash civilization. WWII created a huge mess, but a mess that could be cleaned up. But a WWIII with nuclear weapons would likely be a very different story, due to the much larger scale of the technology involved.

So we can chose to embrace DNA technology for the many impressive benefits it will surely bring. But do the benefits really matter if they can all be erased by mistakes and misuse?

The issue of scale. Focus on that. In the past the scale of powers was modest, so problems could be fixed. As the scale of powers grows, sooner or later we hit the "one bad day and it's game over" situation.

I was an English major, so this is way out of my field, but I think you are referencing losses at low voltage. Transmission across long distances is at very high voltage, and losses are low -- less than 10% over a thousand km. The very high voltage of long distance transmission is stepped way down for distribution to consumers, and the stepping-down occurs in substations not very far from users. In much of the world, there would be no need to locate solar plants far from users. Indeed, if the solar panels are on one's roof, or near one's urban area, transmission won't be a problem. — Bitter Crank

Right, but transmission at high voltages requires base load, which is exactly what you have with coal or nuclear, you don't have with solar panels alone. Using solar panels to produce electricity at relatively low voltages, and using that to produce hydrogen - instead of transmitting electrical energy, overcomes that problem - allowing us to utilize solar energy a long way away from where the energy is gathered. The geographical area available for solar panels is thus multiplied tremendously.

In much of the world, there would be no need to locate solar plants far from users. Indeed, if the solar panels are on one's roof, or near one's urban area, transmission won't be a problem. — Bitter Crank

It is a problem; one that this approach solves.

Yes, that's it. I understand what you're saying better than you do. I get that having this revealed to the world in print is annoying to you, and I do regret the dent your ego is experiencing, but again, this is a philosophy forum, and that's what happens in such places. — Jake

You don't even understand your own argument implies there's nothing anyone can do. If you believe that, why go on about it? Are you just trying to rub humanity's nose in their ineptitude and helplessness - unto inevitable extinction? What a perfectly horrible thing to say - over and over and over again.

You don't even understand your own argument implies there's nothing anyone can do. — karl stone

That's not the case at all. There's nothing stopping us from updating our relationship with knowledge to adapt to the new environment that's been created by science. Well, nothing except grasping that the environment has profoundly changed, thus creating a need to adapt.

But, your point is taken that we're not ready yet to do anything. Reason isn't enough, we're going to need some kind of big crisis to awake us from our philosophical slumbers.

How are you going to fund what you've actually proposed?
You give sound bite answers to this, while investing post after post after post in expressing how dented your ego feels etc. — Jake

I've answered this question. Mortgage fossil fuels to the world to monetize without extracting them, and use the money raised to fund fossil fuel infrastructure. What is it about that answer do you not understand?

That's not the case at all. There's nothing stopping us from updating our relationship with knowledge to adapt to the new environment that's been created by science. Well, nothing except grasping that the environment has profoundly changed, thus creating a need to adapt. But, your point is taken that we're not ready yet to do anything. Reason isn't enough, we're going to need some kind of big crisis to awake us from our philosophical slumbers. — Jake

Updating it how?
Who decides?
How much will that cost?
Adapt how? In relation to what? Thoughts and prayers?
What new environment? What's new about it? What does it mean?
"We're not ready to do anything?" I didn't say that.
What do you mean reason isn't enough? Who is depending solely on reason?

The issue of scale. Focus on that. — Jake

Your focus appears to be skewed to fit your belief that knowledge needs to be regulated and this is an expression of intellectual dishonesty. For instance:

If your neighbor can do something that impressive, what could a team of well-funded terrorists do with the same technology? If they wipe out the human race or collapse civilization, either with intent or by mistake, do you still care about what's happening with plastic? — Jake

If my neighbor could do something that impressive it would mean that biotechnology had advanced to a degree that more things are possible than we could imagine. For example, with that advanced biotech, we might have modified our immune systems to withstand any biohazard that a terrorist could unleash, or that we modified our neurology so that we had less fear and aggression and more cooperativeness so that terrorists would no longer exist, or we might have wiped ourselves out with the tech long before my neighbor could get his grubby little hands on it.

Now do you see why your question is silly?

Regulation of knowledge is the problem. Failure to recognize scientific method as the means to valid knowledge of reality from 1630; and persisting in that mistake for 400 years, explains how we arrive at this state of affairs, how we've invoked these challenges to our existence, and why we have the knowledge and technology to address the problem, but lack the ability to apply it.

The argument from cause and effect is that there's a relationship between the validity of the knowledge bases of action and the consequences of such action.

The argument from evolution is that life is 'correct to reality' from the atom up, through its DNA, its physiology, its behavior - all crafted by the function or die algorithm of evolution. The implication is that we have to be intellectually correct to reality or be rendered extinct.

The argument from epistemology is that science tells us what we can know, and how we can know it in a methodologically rigorous way - that now constitutes a highly valid and coherent, if incomplete - understanding of reality. It is science as an understanding of reality, particularly as it has coalesced over the past 50 years - that is a new, and epistemically significant factor we have yet to account for.

This leads to a political argument - most basically, that government should be responsible to scientific truth. The longer version of the argument suggests significant limitations on the legitimacy of the principle, to account for the 'realities' of the world we live in. Most basically, existential necessity provides both prior authority to science, and a legitimate limit upon the priority of science over ideology.

Nonetheless, there's a powerful and valuable rationale that follows from accepting science is true, that enables us to overcome the limitations of ideologies without undermining them. These limitations are manifest in the argument we set out with - that explains why we have the knowledge and technology to secure a sustainable future, but at the same time, lack the ability to apply it.

Your focus appears to be skewed to fit your belief that knowledge needs to be regulated and this is an expression of intellectual dishonesty. — praxis

Thank you for characterizing my remarks.

Now, if you don't mind, could you please address the issue of scale. As example, is there not a profound difference between a bomb that blows up a building and a bomb that blows up a city?

The "more is better" paradigm you are defending arose in an era when the powers available to human beings were modest in scale, in comparison to today, and what is coming. That era is over, and my honorable fellow members along with most of the rest of society, are still stuck there philosophically.

If my neighbor could do something that impressive it would mean that biotechnology had advanced to a degree that more things are possible than we could imagine. For example, with that advanced biotech, we might have modified our immune systems to withstand any biohazard that a terrorist could unleash, or that we modified our neurology so that we had less fear and aggression and more cooperativeness so that terrorists would no longer exist, or we might have wiped ourselves out with the tech long before my neighbor could get his grubby little hands on it. — praxis

Or a million things. Or your neighbor might crash the ecosystem before any of that happens. What's your plan, do nothing and wait to see what happens?

Mortgage fossil fuels to the world to monetize without extracting them, and use the money raised to fund fossil fuel infrastructure. What is it about that answer do you not understand? — karl stone

Like I've asked about a dozen times now, how do we mortgage an asset which can't be used in any realistic manner or time frame, and thus has no value? Are you going to lend YOUR money to such a hair brained project? No, you're not. Neither is anybody else.

The argument from evolution is that life is 'correct to reality' from the atom up, through its DNA, its physiology, its behavior - all crafted by the function or die algorithm of evolution. The implication is that we have to be intellectually correct to reality or be rendered extinct. — karl stone

Yes, so for instance, if the environment changes we have to change too. Or we can ignore the need to change, and die.

Your plan for change appears to be that humans will become Super Rational. But you offer no explanation of how that will happen, and blatantly ignore thousands of years of evidence which points in the opposite direction.

To be intellectually correct to reality we either have to scale ourselves up (become Super Rational!) to meet the new power rich environment created by science, or scale down the powers we give to the quite flawed creatures we actually are.

If you have a plan for how we become Super Rational it might be helpful if you'd like to present it.

Like I've asked about a dozen times now, how do we mortgage an asset which can't be used in any realistic manner or time frame, and thus has no value? Are you going to lend YOUR money to such a hair brained project? No, you're not. Neither is anybody else. — Jake

I do not accept your objection is valid. It's the difference between commercial debt - which you're talking about, and something more akin to sovereign debt. Sovereign debt is valid as a consequence of a political obligation to service it - such that, surety for the debt follows from a political commitment to secure a sustainable future.

Yes, so for instance, if the environment changes we have to change too. Or we can ignore the need to change, and die.

Your plan for change appears to be that humans will become Super Rational. But you offer no explanation of how that will happen, and blatantly ignore thousands of years of evidence which points in the opposite direction.

To be intellectually correct to reality we either have to scale ourselves up (become Super Rational!) to meet the new power rich environment created by science, or scale down the powers we give to the quite flawed creatures we actually are.

If you have a plan for how we become Super Rational it might be helpful if you'd like to present it. — Jake

You're telling me what I'm saying again. I'm not saying that. You're thus attacking a strawman again. I'm not arguing we need to become super rational. I don't even know what that means - if anything.

A natural tendency toward truth is very deeply ingrained in people. It's closely related to the moral sense. No artificial appeals are necessary, given certain assurances regarding legitimate limitations on the implications of science as truth. Limited to providing a rationale to apply renewable energy technology - we can safely accept that science is true, and thus has authority - in that context. No-one is suggesting re-organizing contemporary society as dictated by science. That would be morally wrong.

If my neighbor could do something that impressive it would mean that biotechnology had advanced to a degree that more things are possible than we could imagine. For example, with that advanced biotech, we might have modified our immune systems to withstand any biohazard that a terrorist could unleash, or that we modified our neurology so that we had less fear and aggression and more cooperativeness so that terrorists would no longer exist, or we might have wiped ourselves out with the tech long before my neighbor could get his grubby little hands on it.
— praxis

Or a million things. Or your neighbor might crash the ecosystem before any of that happens. — Jake

I don't think you're getting the point. You talk about scale but fail to appriciate the full potential length of it. Knowledge and technology could potentially equip (via biotech enhancement or whatever) our species to be effectively responsible enough to handle dangerous tech.

Maybe you haven't read enough sci-fi or otherwise lack imagination?