Yes, we can handle it. — karl stone

We have thousands of nukes aimed down our own throats. Are we handling it?

If we know what's true, and do what's right in terms of what's true - if we value the sustainability of our existence, by those principles alone, we can handle everything technology has to offer. — karl stone

Except that there is no plan to take us to this level of sanity, and vague dreamy utopian visions have proven incapable of taking us there.

No offense Karl, but I give up, you are too willing to blatantly ignore reality to take your theories seriously. I'm glad you're on the forum though.

We have thousands of nukes aimed down our own throats. Are we handling it? — Jake

Well, we haven't used them in anger but once. Two bombs - but part of the same offensive. Terrible thing - haven't done it again. So, given the collective irrationality argument - yes, we're handling it so far.

Except that there is no plan to take us to this level of sanity, and vague dreamy utopian visions have proven incapable of taking us there. — Jake

Thanks for your opinion, but you haven't really come clean, have you? I've asked about your motives for relentlessly banging your doom drum, and you've been less than forthcoming. It's not intellectual merit, because both Praxis and I have destroyed your argument. That's what tends happen on forums like this. Yet here you are, still banging your drum. Are you religious - and anti science? Are you simply misanthropic - you hate people? What is it with you?

No offense Karl, but I give up, you are too willing to blatantly ignore reality to take your theories seriously. I'm glad you're on the forum though. — Jake

I do find your views offensive - as I've already told you. I find your lack of effort, and hope, and your unwillingness to change your mind offensive. I find your shallow mischaracterization of my arguments offensive - this repeated utopian mantra for example. Your ostensible politeness doesn't make up for any of that. So saying no offense - stands in stark contrast to the fact that you're the most offensive person imaginable. A closed minded doom monger - who's underlying message is don't hope and don't try. That's offensive. Goodbye.

So, given the collective irrationality argument - yes, we're handling it so far. — karl stone

So if I were to walk around all day every day with a loaded gun in my mouth you would consider that a successful management of my handgun, given that the gun hasn't gone off.

See? It's not possible to have a rational discussion with true believers of any stripe.

Thanks for your opinion, but you haven't really come clean, have you? I've asked about your motives for relentlessly banging your doom drum, and you've been less than forthcoming. — karl stone

It always makes me smile when people yell at me for not typing enough. :smile:

Why am I relentlessly addressing the subject of our relationship with knowledge? Because the future of human civilization will be determined by that relationship.

A closed minded doom monger - who's underlying message is don't hope and don't try. — karl stone

My message is that we can adapt to the revolutionary new era which the success of science has created if we try. But as your posts illustrate, a great many people instead invest all of their intelligence and effort in to trying to cling to the past.

Look. You're shooting the messenger here. It's not my fault that the long era of knowledge scarcity has become a new era characterized by a knowledge explosion. It's not my fault that, just as your words constantly remind us, we have to adapt to reality if we want to survive. I didn't create these situations, I'm just reporting on them.

You have good intentions. You just don't understand that an era of knowledge explosion is an environment very different than an era of knowledge scarcity, requiring a different adaptive response. The "more is better" response which was entirely appropriate in an era of knowledge scarcity can not be automagically transferred to a knowledge explosion era just because it's a routine that we're comfortable with.

Your ideas would have fit nicely in the 19th century. But we're not in that century any more, a reality I had nothing to do with.

So if I were to walk around all day every day with a loaded gun in my mouth you would consider that a successful management of my handgun, given that the gun hasn't gone off.

See? It's not possible to have a rational discussion with true believers of any stripe. — Jake

Is that a rational argument? It's not an accurate analogy. Why have you got a handgun in your mouth? There are reasons we created nuclear weapons. There are reasons for the arms race. They're not good reasons. They're an ideologically premised misapplication of technology. But accepting those ideological concepts as true for the purposes of this argument, it's not insane to match your enemy's military capabilities. It's collective irrationality - not insanity.

Why am I relentlessly addressing the subject of our relationship with knowledge? Because the future of human civilization will be determined by that relationship. — Jake

I agree. I'm addressing the same issue - and explaining the phenomena you describe, in a way that offers the opportunity of a sustainable future. You seem angered by that - like I've broken your spear. The spear with which you stabbed people in the heart.

My message is that we can adapt to the revolutionary new era which the success of science has created if we try. But as your posts illustrate, a great many people instead invest all of their intelligence and effort in to trying to cling to the past. — Jake

It wasn't a page ago where you said - we cannot adapt fast enough. It's not what you're saying if you would seek to put the brakes on progress in some vague undefined way - and it isn't what you're saying if you imagine there's an adult in the room who will tell we children to stop playing with fire. Really - what you're saying is, you're playing God, and will get your comeuppance. It's the Prometheus story. You would chain us to a rock and have an eagle eat our liver. It's an old, old story - and if you still don't understand the way in which I account for this issue - there's little hope you'll ever understand.

You have good intentions. — Jake

Yes, but no! I have good intentions and good ideas. I do not have the kind of stupid good intentions that pave the path to hell.

You just don't understand that an era of knowledge explosion is an environment very different than an era of knowledge scarcity, requiring a different adaptive response. — Jake

Yes, I do. My entire argument describes the correct adaptive response to a new kind of knowledge, and explains why it's the correct response.

The "more is better" response which was entirely appropriate in an era of knowledge scarcity can not be automatically transferred to a knowledge explosion era just because it's a routine that we're comfortable with. — Jake

"More is better" does not describe my argument at all. It barely describes what's happening in the world right now. I gave you three examples of 'less is better' human beings have put into practice you simply haven't acknowledged. Your cogniphobia is not uncommon. It's a tale as old as the hills - and it's updated in every era, Prometheus, Pandora, Frankenstein, Transcendence (film with Johnny Depp.) The mad scientist theme is big in Hollywood - and is ultimately part of the suppression of science by religious, political and economic ideology.

What I'm arguing for is responsibility to science as a true description of reality, as the basis for the application of technology.

That's not "more is better" - is it? It's a means of discriminating good from bad. So why do you keep saying it is? Is it so you can pretend your cruel spear does not lie broken at your feet?

I have not read through the comments you have received for this discussion, so excuse me if I am restating something someone else has already said. I will read through the comments once I have more time.

This is regarding the paragraph where you discussed solar power.

I believe a large solar power plant should be positioned in the deserts of a particular country - preferably Australia, where there are no wars or much other troubles to be dealt with. A solar power plant only requires a reasonably small amount of land to power our entire planet, so it would be no trouble keeping these renewable power stations on land (and out of the rough and dangerous seas).

Climate change is a topic that interests me very much, and has done for many years, so it was fascinating reading your views on this detrimental subject. I will be both incredibly fearful and curious to see what happens to both our own species and the life around us as a result of an ever rapidly warming planet.

Seventeen pages is a bit much to ask of anyone - but I do recommend the opening post. You're right, that all the world's energy needs could be supplied from renewables.

A patch of solar panels 450 miles square - would provide the same amount of energy used in the world, and not just electricity, but all the oil, coal and gas too. The problem with placing them in the Australian desert, as per your suggestion - is transmitting that energy. There's a significant energy loss over long distances - particularly at lower voltages, due to resistance in transmission cables.

The reason I suggest floating solar panels is that using electricity to convert sea water into hydrogen, stores that energy in a convenient form, which can be used both to power traditional power stations - producing electricity transmitted by the normal means, but can also be used for transport, aluminium, cement and steel works - big users of energy, with little in the way of adaptation. Furthermore, it overcomes the 'night-time' issue.

I have addressed the question of rough and stormy seas by suggesting a submersible design - but clearly, they would need to be quite robust regardless of that issue.

There's a calculation for the world's energy needs in solar panels here:

https://landartgenerator.org/blagi/archives/127

That includes this shocking, but illustrative comparison:

"According to the United Nations 170,000 square kilometers of forest is destroyed each year. If we constructed solar farms at the same rate, we would be finished in 3 years."

Beyond the opening post on page one - I explain the mistake that brings us to a place where we are destroying forests at such a rate, but are unable to apply the technologies we have - which we need to apply to secure a sustainable future. But it is technologically possible to supply the world's energy needs from renewable sources without breaking a sweat!

A solar power plant only requires a reasonably small amount of land to power our entire planet, so it would be no trouble keeping these renewable power stations on land (and out of the rough and dangerous seas). — outlier

Don't forget the need for water.