I appreciate - it's not much fun being poor in a capitalist economy - but that's why one has to develop skills, or specialist knowledge - required by the market. — karl stone

Except that in a "more is better" knowledge economy characterized by accelerating social and technological change, whatever skills you develop are likely to go out of date before you're done needing them. As example, I just watched a documentary showing how robots are taking over many surgical tasks. It's not just factory workers who are at risk.

What this accelerating change does is infuse the society with considerable uncertainty, which generates fear, which eventually leads to masses of people doing stupid things like voting for President Dumpster. Dangerous right wing wackos are rising to power all over the world, which illustrates that at least some of the forces at play are global, and not the result of local conditions.

Some of us will be able to develop skills that aren't quickly made obsolete by the market, that's true. That doesn't matter if large numbers of other people can't keep up, and thus become susceptible to persuasion by crackpot ideologues promising to "make America great again". Example, some of us are indeed thriving in this economy, while those who aren't thriving give us a leader who pulls us out of the Paris Agreement, humanity's best hope to avoid catastrophic climate change.

Except that in a "more is better" knowledge economy characterized by accelerating social and technological change, whatever skills you develop are likely to go out of date before you're done needing them. As example, I just watched a documentary showing how robots are taking over many surgical tasks. It's not just factory workers who are at risk.

What this accelerating change does is infuse the society with considerable uncertainty, which generates fear, which eventually leads to masses of people doing stupid things like voting for President Dumpster. Dangerous wing wackos are rising to power all over the world, which illustrates that at least some of the forces at play are global, and not the result of local conditions.

Some of us will be able to develop skills that aren't quickly made obsolete by the market, that's true. That doesn't matter if large numbers of other people can't keep up, and thus become susceptible to persuasion by crackpot ideologues promising to "make America great again". Example, some of us are indeed thriving in this economy, while those who aren't thriving give us a leader who pulls us out of the Paris Agreement, humanity's best hope to avoid catastrophic climate change. — Jake

We see things quite differently, you and I - but it's not like I don't understand where you're coming from, nor indeed, where people voting for increasingly insular regimes are coming from either. I think you're right that it's fear based. The world is becoming an increasingly scary place as we progress down the wrong path - and if we continue, it'll only get worse.

It's cause and effect - the natural consequence of acting at odds to the actual nature of reality, best described by science, and mis-characterized by religious and political ideologies, as a context for economics. For example, it's a simple matter of fact we are unable - (and it would be unwise and premature) to accept, that the earth is a single planetary environment, and humankind is a single species. As a matter of fact, nation states are not real things - they're socially constructed. The world didn't come with borders painted on it, and similarly - an indigenous population is actually a somewhat random collection of hunter-gatherer tribes cobbled together into a civilization by all agreeing to convenient lies.

However, because we believe nation states are real things - we fear 'the other' - particularly in face of climate change, again caused by not acting in relation to scientific truth. We fear they will be driven by climate change to invade us, and thereby dilute our identity and prosperity. We see limits to resources, and imagine it's a zero sum game. But I would argue that by correcting the mistake we made way back when, we can multiply resources exponentially - tackle climate change and alleviate those fears.

Your approach is therefore in my view, hugely counter productive. More is better. Not indiscriminately more, as you seem to think I'm suggesting - but a careful more, where technology is applied in relation to science as truth to achieve sustainability.

Using reason to examine and challenge the "more is better" group consensus to see if it can withstand scrutiny. — Jake

Well, more philosophy, more reason, more cooperation, more knowledge, less greed, less competition, less material accumulation. That sounds like a plan.

if we are to survive, we have to get there from here - and harnessing capitalist forces is indispensable to any possible solution to our problems. — karl stone

I can go along with that. But with the emphasis on a good robust harness. At the moment, capitalist forces are at the wrong end of the harness - in the driving seat.

But I would argue that by correcting the mistake we made way back when, we can multiply resources exponentially - tackle climate change and alleviate those fears. — karl stone

How do we correct the mistake...

At the scale necessary...

In the time frame necessary?

I generally agree with you that IF human beings could be fundamentally transformed for the better by some method or another, that would make us much more capable of successfully managing the ever greater powers to emerge from the knowledge explosion. IF that were to happen, I would be happy to agree to more knowledge and power to the degree it could be proven that we can manage it.

But given that aligning ourselves with reality is one of your key points, a point I agree with, I have to remind you that there is no credible plan currently available which would accomplish the needed human transformation on the needed scale.

To compare humanity to teenagers, we may someday grow up, mature, evolve and become more sophisticated and intelligent beings. If we survive, that is likely over the long term, just as it is with teenagers.

But we aren't there yet. Evidence: thousands of hydrogen bombs aimed down our own throats.

We give our teenage son the keys to the car when he is ready to successfully manage that level of power. We adults aren't ready for more power yet. Maybe someday, probably someday, not today.

We should say to our teenage son....

"Get rid of nuclear weapons, solve climate change, and then come back and we'll have this conversation about you driving the family car again. But first, prove that you are ready."

Well, more philosophy, more reason, more cooperation, more knowledge, less greed, less competition, less material accumulation. That sounds like a plan. — unenlightened

That's something we can work on, but it probably won't be enough on it's own. A big dose of pain is likely going to be required too.

The world is becoming an increasingly scary place as we progress down the wrong path — karl stone

The wrong path is changing the environment we inhabit faster than human beings can adapt to that environment.

If you can reflect on this a bit, I think you will see this premise is actually not in conflict with your own premise. You feel we must align ourselves with reality or we will perish, for this is the law of nature. I agree with that.

The problem, as seen from here, is that the group consensus you are speaking on behalf of doesn't have a very sophisticated understanding of reality, specifically human reality. You observe the landscape and see a technical problem, because you like technical challenges. But fundamentally what we face is not a technical problem, but a human problem. Unlimited free clean energy would simply empower us to do more of the stupid stuff we are already doing.

The next problem, as seen from here, is that the group consensus has shifted the blind faith we used to have in religious clerics in to a blind faith in what I call the "science clergy". The obstacle here is that while scientists are indeed expert in the technical aspects of reality, they are really no better at understanding the human reality than any of the rest of us. And, the human reality is a very important component of the reality equation.

Nor does science culture have a superior understanding of reason, given that they are still selling us an outdated "more is better" paradigm from the 19th century in spite of clear compelling evidence (thousands of hydrogen bombs) that we simply aren't ready for more and more power without limit. You can blame the weapons on religion or politicians or whoever you want, but the REALITY is that they exist, and we don't know how to get rid of them. And that "we" includes the science clergy.

Thus, blind faith in science or scientists is not warranted, just as it wasn't warranted in regards to religious clerics.

There's no shortage of pain.

Pain is not transformative; it's not even much of an aid to learning. It may likely happen, but it certainly isn't required. At the individual level in the developed world, there is no pain in eating less meat, it's healthier; no pain in turning down the heating and wearing more clothes; no pain in forgoing flights abroad; no pain in recycling. At the social level, the benefits of promoting house insulation, green energy, public transport, recycling, better diet, will largely pay for themselves, and reduce the pain of pollution, obesity, etc. It makes good sense even without global warming.

These policies are not implemented because society is driven by profit, as I mentioned above, and there is no profit in contentment.

I can go along with that. But with the emphasis on a good robust harness. At the moment, capitalist forces are at the wrong end of the harness - in the driving seat. — unenlightened

Imagine you are capitalism. Does that sound attractive to you? I'm trying to describe an opportunity - not a diet regime, or a prison sentence. I'm trying to explain that we don't have to back down, have less, go vegan - and see everything fall apart anyway, only slightly less rapidly.

Pain is not transformative; it's not even much of an aid to learning. — unenlightened

Aha, you've given me an easy target! :smile:

I would agree that reason is sufficient for many things, primarily easy things that we want to hear. Reason starts to reach it's limits when we arrive at realities we don't want to face.

Science culture tells us that things can get better, better and better, faster, faster and faster. Of course we'd like this to be true. It's a great story which as you can see is quite difficult to dislodge, just as the story of eternal reward in heaven has had long legs.

I do agree that things can get better over the long run, but not at speeds which exceed the human ability to adapt. And by "human" I mean humanity not particular individuals.

An engineering approach looks at the system as a whole, and seeks out single points of failure, weak links, which have the potential to crash the system. As example, your car may have the very latest most powerful engine, but if you blow a tire on the highway death may still be the result.

As the Trump phenomena should illustrate, if any sizable percentage of us go off the deep end that has the potential to ruin things for everyone. And so it's not enough that brilliant huge brained philosophers such as ourselves get it (and we don't) the understanding has to be fairly widespread for reason alone to be sufficient to accomplish any major paradigm shift. Again, the horror of WWII brought the insanity of war home to European culture, not centuries of reason and philosophy.

Thus, my typing on the subject is likely an irrational waste of time, as few are going to be willing to give up the "more is better" without limit dream until something forces them to.

I'm trying to describe an opportunity - not a diet regime, or a prison sentence. — karl stone

Less meat is not vegan, wearing a sweater is not a prison sentence.

You have to have a car, because you have to live a long way from work because you don't get paid enough to afford to live where the work is and public transport is revolting and even more expensive than a car. So you contribute to the pollution that makes the city air so poisonous that you have to have an inhaler to survive in it. The travel time on congested roads and work leaves you neither time nor energy to cook your own food, so you have to eat prepackaged ready meals or takeaways, and so cannot properly control your own diet. So you have to buy supplement pills.

And you are so browbeaten by the propaganda you are subjected to day and night that you think this is freedom, and a healthy and contented existence a prison sentence.

I'm trying to explain that we don't have to back down, have less, go vegan - and see everything fall apart anyway, only slightly less rapidly. — karl stone

The problem here is that there is no limit to how much more we want. We're already the richest people ever to walk the face of the Earth, but the thought of not always having more and more and more frightens us. And that fear interferes with our ability to make rational choices.

To make rational choices we the rich should first achieve a state where we are content with what we already have. In that circumstance, further enhancements would be a choice, and not a NEED. When it is a choice and not a need, then we can observe the situation in a much more detached and objective manner, which it seems is much of what you're arguing for.

Science culture tells us that things can get better, better and better, faster, faster and faster. — Jake

I don't think it does. That sounds more like politics.

I don't think it does. That sounds more like politics. — unenlightened

Ok, I'll rephrase. Science culture tells us that we should obtain as much knowledge as possible, and we buy this proposal because we and our politicians understandably want things to get better, better and better, faster, faster and faster.

The wrong path is changing the environment we inhabit faster than human beings can adapt to that environment. If you can reflect on this a bit, I think you will see this premise is actually not in conflict with your own premise. You feel we must align ourselves with reality or we will perish, for this is the law of nature. I agree with that. — Jake

More or less, but I don't agree we are unable to adapt quickly enough. If I thought that I wouldn't say anything. What would be the point? I'd just plaster on my smile and hope it lasted my lifetime. I'm speaking out because there's huge opportunity - because this technological adolescence is just the beginning, if it is not the end.

The problem, as seen from here, is that the group consensus you are speaking on behalf of doesn't have a very sophisticated understanding of reality, specifically human reality. You observe the landscape and see a technical problem, because you like technical challenges. But fundamentally what we face is not a technical problem, but a human problem. Unlimited free clean energy would simply empower us to do more of the stupid stuff we are already doing. — Jake

What group consensus? I'm not in your head - and I don't agree with you. I don't know what this vague term 'group consensus' refers to. Humankind? Science? Politics? Capitalism? Philosophy? Please be specific.

Actually, the technical challenge is the least part of what I'm saying. It's not my area of expertise, and is not at all how I came to this issue. It began as a need to know what's true - a philosophical problem. And fundamentally, I'm saying the problem is a philosophical one: i.e. we devalue science relative to ideology.

The next problem, as seen from here, is that the group consensus has shifted the blind faith we used to have in religious clerics in to a blind faith in what I call the "science clergy". The obstacle here is that while scientists are indeed expert in the technical aspects of reality, they are really no better at understanding the human reality than any of the rest of us. And, the human reality is a very important component of the reality equation. Nor does science culture have a superior understanding of reason, given that they are still selling us an outdated "more is better" paradigm from the 19th century in spite of clear compelling evidence (thousands of hydrogen bombs) that we simply aren't ready for more and more power without limit. You can blame the weapons on religion or politicians or whoever you want, but the REALITY is that they exist, and we don't know how to get rid of them. And that "we" includes the science clergy. — Jake

I don't get this at all. You're saying that scientists are at the same time myopic specialists with a somewhat stereotypical lack of knowledge of the real world - and also the salesmen of a more is better paradigm? Something you've said 20 times already - without taking on board a single devastating criticism offered by anyone else. In the previous post for example, I spoke of how your ideas feed into right wing fears and insular politics, and you keep banging the same drum? Praxis showed there's no adult in the room to govern we so called children. I've put it to you that, because people have needs and wants - there's no stopping progress, yet here we are again. Talking about your ideas to the exclusion of my own. Jake - you have made no effort to understand what I'm saying, what you're saying is not right, and you're not helping.

Thus, blind faith in science or scientists is not warranted, just as it wasn't warranted in regards to religious clerics. — Jake

Science isn't about faith - it's precisely the opposite. It's about forming ideas and testing them to destruction, and only keeping the ones that cannot be destroyed. It's not blind, and it's not faith. But you don't even understand this. I've answered your beliefs several times. I have nothing else to say on the subject! I don't like being rude - so please, if it's your belief we are helpless - consider plastering a smile on your face and just hoping it lasts your lifetime.

More or less, but I don't agree we are unable to adapt quickly enough. — karl stone

We have thousands of hair trigger hydrogen bombs aimed down our own throat. Do you consider this a successful adaptation which increases our chances of survival? We see climate change threatening to spin out of control as a result of the industrial revolution. We're risking everything so that we can have iPads. Do you consider this evidence of our ability to adapt?

You're saying that scientists are at the same time myopic specialists with a somewhat stereotypical lack of knowledge of the real world - and also the salesmen of a more is better paradigm? — karl stone

Yes, that's it, you get it now. To be more precise, they (as a group) have a lack of knowledge about the HUMAN reality, just as you do. The "more is better" paradigm assumes that humans can successfully manage any power which arises out of that process, irregardless of what rate that power emerges. That's simply false.

Knowledge can be developed faster than maturity. The mismatch between these two rates is dangerous. That's simply true.

Something you've said 20 times already - without taking on board a single devastating criticism offered by anyone else. — karl stone

There have been no devastating criticisms. I understand this particular issue (not all issues!) better than the rest of you. Sorry, not trying to be insulting, just providing a reality check.

Praxis showed there's no adult in the room to govern we so called children. — karl stone

Praxis showed he has no interest in trying to meet that challenge, because he's not actually interested in this subject at all. As is his right.

I've put it to you that, because people have needs and wants - there's no stopping progress, yet here we are again. — karl stone

Yes, and one of our "needs and wants" is for a stable civilization which can well serve our descendants, instead of blowing up in our face due to arrogance, greed, and philosophical stubbornness.

Talking about your ideas to the exclusion of my own. — karl stone

Sorry, you don't own this thread. Not going to bother to explain that again. The mods own this thread. If they find my posts inappropriate they will delete them. Nothing for you to do!

Science isn't about faith - it's precisely the opposite. — karl stone

Science is not about faith, agreed. Your RELATIONSHIP with science is faith based, and you are in very good company, as many smart people also embrace that faith. It's a common logic mistake to assume that because we've rejected religion that automatically equals rejecting faith. It's closer to the truth to say that we've transferred our faith from one target to another.

But you don't even understand this. — karl stone

What so annoys you about me is that I understand all of this far better than you do, which is publicly denying you what you most want here, recognition as a technological sage. My apologies, I have no personal beef with you, and I'm not unsympathetic to your personal ego situation, as I have one of my own. But again...

THIS IS A PHILOSOPHY FORUM....

...and relentlessly challenging is what happens in such places. You are challenging certain philosophies as well, which is good.

I'm trying to describe an opportunity - not a diet regime, or a prison sentence.
— karl stone
— unenlightened

Less meat is not vegan, wearing a sweater is not a prison sentence. — unenlightened

No, but it's not a solution either. It is a hardship for a significant number of people in the world who have very little meat in their diet. And, like I told my mother - kids starving in Africa will gain no benefit from me eating my sprouts! Seriously though, our problems are not the consequence of too many people or insufficient resources. Malthus's famously incorrect prediction of mass starvation following from the disparity between the geometric rate of population growth, (2, 4, 8, 16 etc) and the arithmetic rate agricultural land can be developed (1, 2, 3, etc) proved incorrect. People are problem solvers - and to paraphrase the Martian we can "science the shit out of this!"

You have to have a car, because you have to live a long way from work because you don't get paid enough to afford to live where the work is and public transport is revolting and even more expensive than a car. So you contribute to the pollution that makes the city air so poisonous that you have to have an inhaler to survive in it. The travel time on congested roads and work leaves you neither time nor energy to cook your own food, so you have to eat prepackaged ready meals or takeaways, and so cannot properly control your own diet. So you have to buy supplement pills. — unenlightened

To paraphrase Job - Woe is me! I get where you're coming from but consider the possibilities that follow from abundant clean energy and producing fresh water. We can develop wastelands for agriculture and habitation - where previously, we had to gather in the river valleys, and burn down the forests. Consider telecommuting, and hydrogen powered vehicles, fish farming instead of trawling the oceans to death, warm homes from renewable energy, cool homes from renewable energy! Imagine automated hydroponic farms in the desert - using solar energy to produce as much food as anyone can eat. Think on what's possible if we can overcome this philosophical obstacle wherein, we have the knowledge and technology but are unable to apply it.

And you are so browbeaten by the propaganda you are subjected to day and night that you think this is freedom, and a healthy and contented existence a prison sentence. — unenlightened

No. I think it's a giant mess in a lot of ways - a moral victory in others. It's not the point. We cannot tear it all down and start again from scratch. That would be as bad or worse than carrying on as we are. We have to 'get there from here' - us, as who we are. The description of the error and its consequences is not a basis to junk everything, or anything. It's about reaching beyond ourselves to learn a lesson - and then bringing that lesson home and applying it very carefully. It's not about changing anything. It's about changing everything by looking at it differently.

Nor does science culture have a superior understanding of reason, given that they are still selling us an outdated "more is better" paradigm from the 19th century in spite of clear compelling evidence (thousands of hydrogen bombs) that we simply aren't ready for more and more power without limit. — Jake

“Science culture” is selling us an outdated paradigm of greed???

We have thousands of hair trigger hydrogen bombs aimed down our own throat. Do you consider this a successful adaptation which increases our chances of survival? — Jake

No. Absolutely not. I consider it an ideologically driven misapplication of technology. Science as a tool, and not as a rule for the conduct of human affairs. I consider it using the tools without reading the instructions. Am I going to run out of ways to say this before it clicks? It's the consequence of an historical error - exemplified by the Church imprisoning Galileo for saying the earth orbits the sun. Science as an understanding of reality was suppressed relative to religious, political and economic ideology, even while science was used by the industrial revolution, and by military powers.

Yes, that's it, you get it now. To be more precise, they (as a group) have a lack of knowledge about the HUMAN reality, just as you do. The "more is better" paradigm assumes that humans can successfully manage any power which arises out of that process, irregardless of what rate that power emerges. That's simply false. Knowledge can be developed faster than maturity. The mismatch between these two rates is dangerous. That's simply true. — Jake

I understand it - but it's wrong. You identify a phenomenon, but do not identify the cause. The cause is described above.

There have been no devastating criticisms. I understand this particular issue (not all issues!) better than the rest of you. Sorry, not trying to be insulting, just providing a reality check.

Praxis showed there's no adult in the room to govern we so called children.
— karl stone

Praxis showed he has no interest in trying to meet that challenge, because he's not actually interested in this subject at all. As is his right. — Jake

Praxis spotted something I missed - and he's right. You say we are children playing with ever more dangerous toys - and so we should limit scientific progress. But who decides? Who is the adult in the room? You? No! It doesn't work, but you won't have it.

Yes, and one of our "needs and wants" is for a stable civilization which can well serve our descendants, instead of blowing up in our face due to arrogance, greed, and philosophical stubbornness. — Jake

So you think 7 billion people are all going to get into farming - do you? Sit around singing cum-by-yar while waiting on a giant pot of lentils to cook by the heat of a beeswax candle? If that appeals to you - go right ahead, but it's not an answer. People won't have it. They have needs and wants - like sending their children to a good school. So they have to make money. They gain knowledge and skills and sell them in the market - and it's a social good. Maybe they gain the knowledge and skills to improve crop yields - feeding more people from less land and water. The whole world benefits. You can't stop that. So why are you trying?

Is it because you get some cheap thrill from doom mongering - and hide that gross appetite behind the facade of anti-scientism?

I think it's a reasonable criticism to take on board and address in relation to my own ideas. It's entirely central to my plan that political and capitalist economic interests see the advantages in this approach - and adopt it voluntarily. There are vast potential benefits unlocked by recognizing the relation between the validity of the knowledge bases of action and the consequences of such action. i.e. knowing what's true and doing what's right - and it's important they do not feel it's a threat to the bottom line - else it just won't happen. — karl stone

Have you heard of the ocean cleanup project? (https://www.theoceancleanup.com)

I think it's at least partly funded by recycling, but in any case, I believe it's a relatively low cost and high benefit solution.

Have you heard of the ocean cleanup project? (https://www.theoceancleanup.com)

I think it's at least partly funded by recycling, but in any case, I believe it's a relatively low cost and high benefit solution. — praxis

I have, but last time I heard of it - not too long ago, it was still in the test phase. In theory, I think it a wonderful idea. Whether it works in practice is another question. I'm sorry to have to say this, but that assessment should be really quite brutal. There's a tendency to conflate the virtue of the aim with the effectiveness of the technology - producing ostensibly virtuous white elephants. It was designed by young people too, I seem to recall - and so there's a lot of people wanting it to work. Including me - but if it doesn't work, I'd scrap it without a moment's hesitation.

The Amish: The group consensus keeps saying that modifying "more is better" is impossible, while blatantly ignoring the real world evidence that some among us have already long ago done so, and continue to do so successfully. While it's very unlikely that we'll all become Amish, what the Amish have proven is that it's possible to have fulfilling human lives without totally surrendering to the dangerous pursuit of more and more and more without limit. — Jake

No one has said it's impossible, and most people know there are cultures who possess values not based in materialism. We may even recognize that such a way of life may be happier and more fulfilling or meaningful, in addition to it being sustainable.

What you're unwilling to admit is that you can't force a cultural reformation by restricting a valuable resource like knowledge.

So you think 7 billion people are all going to get into farming - do you? Sit around singing cum-by-yar while waiting on a giant pot of lentils to cook by the heat of a beeswax candle? — karl stone

Argument by ridicule is a really pathetic, short-sighted tactic. Please just stop. You are talking to concerned serious and intelligent people who are at bottom your allies. Stop being a prat.

Argument by ridicule is a really pathetic, short-sighted tactic. Please just stop. You are talking to concerned serious and intelligent people who are at bottom your allies. Stop being a prat. — unenlightened

That's the second time today I've been taken to task for my sense of humor. In my estimation you're free to think I'm a prat, and free to say so. A little edge is no bad thing - we are human afteral. If you'd argue I should treat ridiculous ideas seriously - can you tell me why, and convince me it's a good idea to do so? Or is this just about people's feelings? Because if it is - let me assure you, Jake isn't nearly as pissed off at what I said to him as I am at having to address his doom mongering nonsense over and over and over and over... without being able to effect it in the least by anything I say. Maybe taking the piss is the only strategy left to me - did you think of that?

Maybe taking the piss is the only strategy left to me - did you think of that? — karl stone

Yes, that's exactly what it looks like.

Maybe taking the piss is the only strategy left to me - did you think of that?
— karl stone

Yes, that's exactly what it looks like. — unenlightened

See, you're getting it! And there was I thinking you were utterly humorless!

Yeah, bye.

Yeah, bye. — unenlightened

Oh, I was right the first time!

I am at having to address his doom mongering nonsense over and over and over and over... — karl stone

To be fair, the doom part isn’t nonsensical. The alleged cause and hint of a solution (“some governing mechanism”) is.

Anyway, for what it’s worth, I’m glad there are people like you thinking of solutions. And on that note I’ll take my leave of the topic. Sorry if I’ve muddied the water by engaging the nonsense.

To be fair, the doom part isn’t nonsensical. The alleged cause and hint of a solution is. Anyway, for what it’s worth, I’m glad there are people like you thinking of solutions. And on that note I’ll take my leave of the topic. Sorry if I’ve muddied the water by engaging the nonsense. — praxis

Think nothing of it - you wouldn't have stopped Jake banging his drum of doom if you'd ignored it. I tried that. You kept him occupied if anything, and sank his battleship with your precision remarks. Please don't flee on my account. You're capable of philosophical reflection, and not mere repetition of prejudicial assumption! But if you have to go - So long, and thanks for all the fish!

I would like to comment on one last thing.

Argument by ridicule is a really pathetic, short-sighted tactic. — unenlightened

Besides what Karl mentioned, it can be a tactic to try getting to know someone better by seeing how they respond to taunting, in a situation where they're unresponsive to reasoning. Jake is remarkably unresponsive to both reasoning and provocation. To me that may indicate a clarity of purpose, which could be admirable if the commitment wasn't to the fault that it appears to be. In other words, it's questionable what he's really committed to.