Thus proving that humans are of limited ability, limited rationality, limited sanity. It's upon that real world evidence that I'm arguing that the powers available to us must also be limited. You keep selling "science as an understanding of reality" while ignoring the reality of the human condition which is well documented in thousands of years of history in all parts of the world. — Jake

No-one has disputed that human beings are limited; nor has anyone argued for unlimited use of technology. The pertinent point is that human beings are threatened with extinction as a consequence of the disparity between technological ability and ideological motivation. You are like the detective at a murder scene - who having established the victim was stabbed concludes "children shouldn't carry knives" - which may be true, but says nothing at all about the motive for the crime.

Similarly, we don't need superhuman powers of prescience to manage technology. All we need, is to know what's true, and do what's right in relation to what's true.
— karl stone

In other words, you're arguing for a radical transformation of the human condition, without offering any explanation of how such a thing might come to be. — Jake

Not really. In fact, if you are arguing against the "more is better" assumption underlying human behavior, it's you proposing the "radical transformation of the human condition, without offering any explanation..."
I'm still trying to put across the principle of acting responsibly in relation to a scientific understanding of reality - as opposed to applying technology as directed by religious, political and economic ideological misconceptions of reality. The motives drawn from one understanding of reality are different from the motives drawn from the other.

If we analyze the maturity of a teenager, and decide they are not yet ready to drive the family car, doesn't such an analysis get us somewhere? — Jake

No. Exactly the opposite. We are left stood in the driveway with a stroppy teenager. But I do get the point, and arguably, I welcome the note of caution. We should be careful about the technology we apply, and luckily for us - there's an objective, increasingly valid and coherent understanding of reality to act as a far more reliable guide as to what technologies to apply than the maximization of profit.

My apologies for my impatience, which is my problem alone. I've had this conversation too many times to count, my own form of irrationality. But (here come the excuses) this is so incredibly SIMPLE!!! that it frustrates me how intelligent well educated people struggle to get it, and rarely succeed. Look how SIMPLE this is... — Jake

It is simple. I get it.
People are mental and can't be trusted, so padded cells for everyone!
But now what?

1) We take it to be obvious that the powers available to children should be limited due to a realistic understanding of the limits of their ability and maturity. 99.9% of all sane adults agree with this. — Jake

But we are not talking about children. We're talking about scientists, governments and industries primarily. Some extremely smart and serious people. And all the factors are in play - science, the genie is out of the bottle, we have a technologically based civilization - and we are faced with existential challenges.

2) On the day the child turns 18 we throw this rational common sense away and the group consensus changes to, "we should have as much power as science can give us, as fast as possible". — Jake

So how are you going to take those factors - already in play, out of the game? You can't. You've left us stranded in the driveway with a stroppy teenager. And if we don't get across town in the next 20 minuets or so - the world will end, badly!

This transformation of the group consensus is not even vaguely rational. It blatantly ignores the well documented evidence provided by thousands of years of human history. And here's why this irrationality takes place. We've transferred the blind faith we used to have in religion in to a blind faith in science. A "more is better" relationship with knowledge and power is simplistic, outdated and dangerous. It's a childlike philosophy whose time should have already come and gone. — Jake

Well it isn't going anywhere Jake - more is inevitable. People need water, food, clothing, housing, heat, light, employment, entertainment - and all you're offering them is less. They'll not have it. King Knut couldn't stop the tide coming in, and you can't either. If you would emphasize limitations upon human abilities, admit that one first. There's no going back. There's no standing still.

Please list for us the scientists and other cultural elites who argue we should be doing less science. The cultural consensus is that we should learn everything we can learn, as fast as we can learn it. Your opening post is part of that consensus. — Jake

I apologize for the brevity of my previous reply. I was just making a note - preparing to answer when it all kicked off. Poirot - double header, the episode(s) where he meets Sherlock! So...

You do not seem to have got to grips with the core concept - that is, science as a tool was pursued as a means to progress, whereas, science as an understanding of reality was suppressed relative to religious dogma, and thereby political and economic ideology.

This consensus is not rational, because it ignores the real world fact that human beings have limited ability, and thus should not be given any and all powers that we can create. As example, we are smart enough to create nuclear weapons, but not smart enough to get rid of them once created. What this demonstrates is the reality that just because we can invent something it doesn't automatically follow that we can also successfully manage what we've created. — Jake

But if, as I would argue, science is both a tool box, and an instruction manual - and our problem is we used the tools without reading the instructions, your criticism is not valid. The bird building a nest before it lays eggs doesn't need to know the future. It is correct to reality; albeit by dint of a veritable mountain of alternate designs discarded by evolution. Similarly, we don't need superhuman powers of prescience to manage technology. All we need, is to know what's true, and do what's right in relation to what's true.

My argument addresses itself to the reality of the philosophy of modern civilization as it currently exists today, a "more is better" relationship with knowledge, and thus power. — Jake

Sure, but it doesn't really get us anywhere, does it? It's of absolutely no help whatsoever to man nor beast. Your thesis implies that there is no prospect of successfully managing technology, and so we we cannot survive. Hence, it's nihilism in a wig and a false mustache! What I'm saying is, there was another way - a path we didn't take, but can still learn from.

As I've said above, I'm not really arguing against your specific proposals so much as I am arguing against the "more is better" technology is the solution to everything mindset which they arise from. And I'm not arguing with you personally so much as I am the cultural group consensus which your post illustrates. — Jake

More is inevitable! Whether it's better or not is another question entirely! I believe it can be better, but it requires accepting that science is a true description of reality, superior to the pre-scientific, culturally specific, religious, political and economic ideas that govern societies - as a basis to apply technology. i.e. not primarily for power and profit, but to balance human welfare and environmental sustainability.

More is inevitable! Whether it's better or not is another question entirely!

A billion is a very big number. It's so large that it distorts any comparison to the life of an ordinary person. I think these statistics suffer from that problem - that large global corporations with market values in the tens of billions weigh so heavily on one side, the equation is practically meaningless.

Your view that the Church (already ruptured by Luther, Henry VIII, Calvin, et al,) held so much intellectual sway over Europe in the 17th century that science was a subsection of theology is not sound, imho. The universities had been in business since the 12th century and had been chipping away at the intellectual citadel of the church. True enough, the French Revolution was still 160 years off; Russia, Spain, and various other princedoms didn't get enlightened for a long time. But a secular-scientific view of the world was none-the-less forming among intellectual elites. — Bitter Crank

That's a reasonable argument. I do seem to be laying blame exclusively with the Church, but rather I'm describing what actually happened to the man who wrote the first formal description of scientific method. If you can do a better job explaining why that happened - I'll find my spectacles, turn off Poirot - Aunt Emily was the victim, going to bed early to be conveniently murdered, and therefore the only person who didn't need an alibi - and sit down and read your book.

In theory, the Church acted as a central coordinating mechanism on a great many levels; political, economic, social i.e. births, deaths, marriages, and professional - through involvement with the universities. Did you know for example that Newton was required to hide his unconventional Unitarian religious beliefs to gain elevation to the Lucasian Chair of Mathematics at Cambridge - and that was almost a hundred years later?

If ultimately what you're saying is that it's more complex than any few hundred words thrown together can convey, then I'm in complete agreement. Afterall, there are no straight lines in nature!

Take Giro Fracastoro (1476-1553) a physician in Padua. In 1546 he proposed his theory that disease, ("infections") were spread by "spores" or some such agent. He was right, but the necessary wherewithal to pursue this theory didn't exist in his lifetime, or until numerous lifetimes later. "Finding scientific reality" was hindered more by the difficulty of the search than interference by religious thinking. — Bitter Crank

If however, you're saying that religious thinking was no obstacle to scientific thinking, then I disagree entirely - and I maintain the essential charge against the Church that is, failing to recognize the truly divine when presented with the formula for its discovery. I think you underestimate the effect of the Church taking such a publicly antithetical stance, that effectively science was branded heretical. Thus, a pall of suspicion was cast upon science one can trace through popular fiction, the obvious example being Frankenstein by Shelley (1823).

Recall, that Darwin was yet to suffer the tortures of the damned at the hands of his own conscience, in contemplation of evolution. He didn't set out on HMS Beagle until 10 years later - and yet this vivid work of popular fiction is wrestling with these themes; science conjuring demons unnatural to God. These are the twisted grains of nature you contrast with my join the dots philosophy, but they say the same.

Still, the study of nature was producing results that could be turned into technology. Watt's steam engine worked, but it leaded steam badly, reducing its efficiency. It was another Englishman*** who had developed methods of drilling precise cylinders in cast iron that made Watt's engines work much better, leading to bigger and better... — Bitter Crank

Wasn't that the corrugated boiler guy? I think I saw a documentary about him. Industrial history is a fascinating subject - it relates to so many of areas of inquiry. But I would point out here that the trick has already been played. We are discussing science as a tool - as opposed to science as truth.

Batteries, photography and telegraphy are further examples of science and technology in the early 19th century. The telegraph was introduced in 1840; by 1862 it had become critical to Lincoln's management of the American Civil War. — Bitter Crank

Oops, we've crossed the pond and entered into a different context of religious and political thought. A much freer one than Europe. I'm thinking in terms of Weber's Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, cross referenced with accounts in Paul Johnson's 'A History of the American People' of the religiosity of the first phases of settlement - and it rather suggests that the philosophical error was undeclared cargo on the Mayflower.

By the mid 19th century, our understanding of the natural world was reaching a critical state where knowledge would take off. In summary: It was the great difficulty of understanding the world without any prior scientific insight that made the task slow and difficult. — Bitter Crank

Back up just a little, because Darwin published Origin of Species in 1859 - a volume not received at all kindly by the religious. An interesting side note is that the one thing missing from Darwin's theory had been discovered a hundred years before by a monk named Mendel, and cast on a dusty shelf in a monastery somewhere; that is, the genetic mechanism by which traits are transmitted one generation to the next. Mendel had it all mapped out statistically - an idea that would have been of immense benefit, and not just to Darwin. Had there been a central coordinating mechanism (following from the Church's welcome of Galileo as revealing God's word set in Creation for us to discover) so to speak, Mendel's ideas would a) have been known - and b) insulted us against the mistaken racial implications of Darwinism as misconceived of by Nazism. That's the path we're not on!

Is capitalism dependent upon stupidity? In America today very few people hold the majority of wealth. And the rest of us just go along with that, distracted as we are by our TVs and social media accounts etc. — Jake

If you begin with the genetic lottery that distributes gifts like intelligence unevenly; you are led to the realization that 50% of people are below average intelligence by definition. There's probably something like 10% of people who cannot be trained for any useful work at all. It is inevitable that they should be poor, relative to those granted the gift of intelligence. Insofar as the gifted make use of those talents - and benefit from doing so, it is good for society (and the poor) that they should.

The top 20 percent of households actually own a whopping 90 percent of the stuff in America.
— Washington Post

What if the top 20 percent owned only 30-40%? They'd still be doing great, and vast sums would be liberated to invest in infrastructure, education, affordable health care etc. But, we the 80% are too dumb to effectively challenge the rigged system, and so we swim in an ocean of preventable problems. — Jake

This isn't an issue I address at all. I don't believe it matters how rich the rich are relative to the least well off. I do think it matters how poor the poor are, because we should seek to promote greater equality of opportunity. It should be open to people to identify their talents and make themselves useful - and benefit from those talents and efforts. In this way they benefit society as a whole. But if you have no talents, and can't be useful, then you are necessarily dependent on the talents and efforts of others - and cannot in all fairness expect equality of outcome. That would be perverse.

First, there is some prospect of managing science and technology, we're already doing that. The question I'm raising is, can we successfully manage unlimited science and technology? If not, then it seems reasonable to at least question whether a development such as, say, unlimited free clean energy would on balance be helpful to human flourishing. — Jake

I don't think we are successfully managing technology. We are headed for extinction as a consequence of the particular technologies we've chosen to employ; not least, fossil fuel energy technology. That's a particular quantifiable problem, ostensibly subject to definition and redress. The idea of "unlimited science and technology" is purely hypothetical and somewhat unlikely. Your argument appeals to the unknown absolute to conjure fear. As if the bear trap that is fossil fuels were not scary enough. But I haven't proposed unlimited science and technology - as your absurd example of selling a ten year old boy a heat seeking missile demonstrates - your arguments are those of a straw-man tilting at windmills. Sort of a cross between Don Quixote and Worsel Gummage!

Next, you keep saying "the reality science describes" without referencing the imperfect reality of the human condition. I wouldn't harp on this except that it seems to me to be not a failure of your personal perspective so much as a logic flaw which almost defines modern civilization. Yes, if human beings were all rational as you define it then we could handle far more power, that's true. The problem is, we're not that rational, never have been, and there's no realistic prospect of us all joining the science religion and becoming Mr. Spock logic machines. — Jake

Again, this is not something I suggest, would want, or imagine would be beneficial. Had science been adopted by the Church from 1630 - and pursued, and integrated into philosophy, politics, economics and society on an ongoing basis, individuals would be much more rational. But that's not what happened. It's not who we are, and I don't imagine we can become rational overnight. It's illogical!!

I'm not technophobic, I'm allergic to our simplistic, outdated and dangerous "more is better" relationship with technology. As example, do you want all citizens to be able to buy nuclear weapons at the Army Navy store? Assuming not, that doesn't make you an enemy of technology, that makes you an enemy of stupidity. — Jake

Where did you get the idea that I'm suggesting giving any technology to anyone anytime? Or that adopting responsibility to science as a coherent understanding of reality implies wholesale deregulation and a lassiez faire attitude? I'm not suggesting that at all. I'm suggesting responsibility of the part of government and industry, such that society can continue - full of muddle headed consumers, eating cheeseburgers, worshiping Gods of their own choosing, and throwing their trash over their shoulder.

Really? Marx was describing the historical processes he saw at work. He didn't save capitalism -- it didn't need saving. Marx predicted, he didn't prescribe. He may have been on the side of the workers. but the workers have tasks that they have to fulfill, from Marx's perspective, and if they didn't fulfill those tasks, then... — Bitter Crank

It's an opinion of course, that Marx saved capitalism. It wasn't his intent, but let us assume his critique was correct - then capitalism should have succumbed to its internal contradictions. But it hasn't - at least, not in the west, not yet. Rather what seemed to follow from Marx influence, was mandatory education for minors, acts prohibiting payment in tokens, pension reform from 1900, and a raft of other social reforms leading ultimately to the welfare state and consumer society. In short, capitalism adjusted to Marx critique, and prevailed over collectivism. Hurrah!

He didn't tell anyone to begin the revolution in 1917. Marx--as far as I can tell--predicted the revolution would happen when the working class was fully developed and capable of taking over capitalism. Have we reached that point yet? Maybe -- workers at all levels of the corporate structure have the skills to operate the corporation. In fact, for the most part workers (low level to high level workers) do operate the corporation. — Bitter Crank

Russia prior to the revolution wasn't capitalist as such. It was a feudal society, in which the vast majority of people were serfs. Expertise and government revolved around the Court of the Tsar, then there was a landowner class, and everyone else were serfs. So, it wasn't capitalism against which the serfs were rebelling in 1917 - it was the politics of the middle ages.

What workers lack is "class-self-consciousness": the kind of consciousness that illuminates their class interests and informs their actions. Most workers in the US, at least, think of themselves as temporarily embarrassed tycoons of some sort. Silly them! Their problem is that they lack class-consciousness, and heaven and earth have been moved to make sure they don't develop class consciousness. — Bitter Crank

There's no-where in the world with a more acute consciousness of social class than Great Britain; and no-where freedom of speech and freedom of political organization is taken more seriously. Indeed, heaven and earth was moved by Marx ideas, but that manifested as reform - stemming largely from the chattering classes. If you're interested in this, look up William Morris - a famous wallpaper designer and social reformer of the era. Joseph Rowntree - the chocolate company founder is another.

That's not Marx's fault. In the long run, if the working class doesn't fulfill it's destiny (as Marx sees it), then one of the contending classes -- workers or capitalists -- will be destroyed. That is not a desirable conclusion to class conflict. — Bitter Crank

Ultimately, I find Marx thesis contradictory - if the history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggle, how could class consciousness be absent from the working class? It doesn't make sense. And it didn't work out too well for Russia.

If there is any prospect at all of successfully managing the potential dangers of science and technology, I'd suggest it follows from adopting responsibility to the meaningful implications of the reality science describes. For, make no mistake - my technophobic friend, there is no retreat to the rural idyll for the majority. I genuinely believe there is a way forward - that follows from the piece on evolution on the previous page, that being (intellectually) correct to reality, as all surviving life has done through attrition until human intellect, is a path that leads somewhere we must go.

But I don't think that connects with your mission of absolving science of heresy. If capitalism makes a whore of science, that's not the fault of science; capitalism prostitutes everything. — Bitter Crank

It's difficult to get all the pieces to relate correctly one to another. Thanks for making the effort. But consider the opportunity foregone by the Church, in the stance they adopted on behalf of European thought - bearing in mind they were burning people alive as witches right through to 1792. Had the Church recognized the significance of science from 1630, and pursued it as effectively the word of God the Creator - science would own authority, and be pursued much more rapidly and systematically than it was.

Granting science the highest authority is debatable because science doesn't produce truth about everything. It has the capacity to give us a truthful report on the physical, natural world. That's no small thing. It is gradually revealing how our brains work--that is most excellent. I trust science. — Bitter Crank

I do not suggest seeking to recreate the consequences of that foregone opportunity overnight - we are who we are, and have to get there from here. Rather, I think we can recognize that a mistake was made, and make use of that realization, insofar as it's useful to us.

What science is not equipped to do is tell us what we should do. Science could help launch the industrial revolution by revealing how things work. It could not inform the first industrialists whether they should build steam engines, power looms, and railroads. Science revealed the nature of electricity; it could not reveal whether the telegraph, telephone, and light bulb were good ideas. — Bitter Crank

I do not accept human beings need telling what they should do. They need telling what's true. But the right and wrong thing is very deeply ingrained. It's a sense, like a sense of humour, or the appreciation of art. The aesthetic sense. I haven't trotted out the ought from is adjustment for a while now. Would you like to go through it?

I don't think science is much encumbered by charges of heresy. What encumbers us all is the grip of capitalist economics and ideology on most of the world. The operation of capitalism is observable and predictable; that's what Karl Marx did. Capitalism is apparently blind to the consequences of its own operation (or at least has major vision problems). Capitalists who are willing to prostitute science probably aren't willing to consult science for advice. Therein lies a major part of our present problem. — Bitter Crank

Marx saved capitalism. And thank goodness because it's close to a miracle. When you think about the billions of people pursuing their rational self interest, and how that all magically conspires to produce and distribute the goods and services people want and need; when you think about the political freedom it affords, and the tolerable injustice of it - to say nothing of the actually quite extraordinary promotion of human welfare worldwide, achieved by capitalism, clearly it must be a major part of any solution.

The reason capitalism is so often cast of the villain of the piece is that it provides one of our main motivations. But what we do is actually decided by a political and legal ideological architecture - in which the authority science rightfully owns goes unrecognized.

Braking is a terrible idea. Slow down, have less? I think NOT!
— karl stone

Then it is difficult to see how you can achieve the apparent aims of this thread.... — Pattern-chaser

Stated aims, I think you'd find if you read it. As are the means, and justifying logics stated. Where have I not been 100% apparent?

Actually, I'm trying to watch Poirot! I can leave that there as the bookmark of an idea I might elaborate on when I'm less at leisure and more focused. Aunt Emily seems to be going out of her way to establish an alibi.

Disagree. Braking is a terrible idea. Slow down? Have less? I think NOT!

Homework? At my age? I've hardly the eyes for it anymore, and keep forgetting where I left my damn spectacles! I keep adding things to my reading list knowing both that I'd enjoy and benefit from reading them, and knowing I never will. I've read widely and quantitatively enough to make arguments I'm certain could be improved by further reading, but it strikes me that however much I do read there will be libraries full of books I haven't read if I live to a hundred years old and do nothing else besides. If you've read these books, please - it would be a very great help to me if you wrote a short, concise precis of the central arguments. Much more of a help than demanding if I've read X, Y, Z - and chortling into your brandy when I must admit I haven't.

It would be helpful if you made yourself aware of the argument set out in the thread. It's arguably quite an important argument, and you're doodling on it.

Thanks for starting this interesting thread with your original post. You do make some good points on what is both an important yet often overlooked topic.

But imho, dismissing a book by its cover like you practically did with Kunstler’s book is sawing off the branch you’re sitting on because you happen to be in a tidying mood. In general, thoughts that are overly dismissive can and probably will be dismissed. But whatever! Carry onward. — 0 thru 9

My manners are appalling, and I'd apologize, but I have something to say that's difficult for people to hear. I can't apologize for the tactics employed to put that idea across, but at the same time it's absolutely not my intent or desire to hurt anybody. I'm sure it's a wonderful book! With a dreadful conclusion!!

What happens the next day? All these industries contract, the capitalist system is thrown into chaos, people's identifies as car riding, suburban house owning, rapacious meat eaters with a job in one of these industries that fly across the globe for a few selfies ... gone. This is the core of the ecological problem and why no politician has done anything about it. Huge push back from existing entrenched industries on one side and on the other identity crisis for a large part of their constituents. — boethius

I disagree. I wouldn't suggest internalizing the true cost. But if you did, the very value of money itself would adjust - just as it adapted to oil price shocks in the past. Rather I'd suggest, seeking to limit the implications to a narrowly focused, feasible and necessary endeavor - like funding renewable energy infrastructure.

Begin with a newly formed, sterile earth - still hot and steaming. Merely physical forces acting on chemical elements... forming compounds, we now know, as a consequence of the valencies of the chemicals, and the structure of the compound, can replicate. DNA is a twisted ladder like structure, that unzips down the middle - and each half, as a consequence of valency - that is, the tendency of particular chemicals to bond with other, particular chemicals - then attracts those chemicals from the environment and replicates the unzipped, missing half of the structure.

Life! Of sorts. But life in the sense that, from this point an important principle kicks in - and that is, the organism (or structure of molecules) has to be correct to reality to survive.

We will now jump forward in time, skipping over the cause and effect of the processes by which proteins are formed, and cells are formed, and the incorporation of mitochondria - and so on and on, it's horrendously complex, to how this principle plays out in life as animals. Note however, that development from a mere structure of molecules to animals, took about 3 billion years, was achieved by incremental, generation after generation, causal steps, that entirely transformed the chemical composition of the atmosphere of the planet more than once. The process didn't skip ahead.

By these means we get to animals. Now consider, for instance, how a bird build's a nest before it lays eggs. Is that because it knows and plans ahead? That seems unlikely. Rather, it's because birds not imbued with an instinctual behavioural imperative to build a nest were rendered extinct. Behaviourally, the bird is correct to the chronological direction of events playing out in an entropic reality - and this in turn, is manifest in the correctness of its physiology to reality - built from the atom up in relation to the same principle. Be correct to reality or be rendered extinct.

Now let's skip ahead again to consider homo sapiens - the only intellectually aware animal we're aware of. Do you see where I'm going with this?

I believe I can prove you wrong, but it's a lengthy argument. I can show you the causal relationship between the evolving organism and reality, that proves the necessity and rightfulness of science as truth. If you're prepared to attend to the argument, I'm prepared to sit down and write it - but have found generally, that lengthy disquisitions are often ignored.

The value of electricity makes almost any location cost effective. Put a solar farm on that corn field. The electricity will be worth far more than the corn. A wind turbine doesn't take up much space on the ground, maybe 400 square feet. There is nothing you can grow on 400 sq. ft. worth as much as the electricity produced from that one turbine-bearing mast. — Bitter Crank

I'm not an electrical engineer - I'm a philosopher. I've pointed out two dozen times that I'm only seeking to prove in principle that it's technologically possible. It's not fair to expect schematics and a business plan. I'm one man trying to correct a 400 year old philosophical error in the political history of my species, as a means of absolving science of the heresy of which it was accused, that in turn made it a whore to capitalism and a lobbyist on the steps of Congress - when it rightfully owns the highest authority, and should command at least some share of the enormous wealth and resources it has made available.

I'm sorry BitterCrank, if you're getting the feeling I'm avoiding your posts. I'm not - at least not deliberately.

Here is your problem:

You are assuming that "the truth" is crisply, concisely, and clearly stated in clean Helvetica text and that the upshot of seeing the truth is equally obvious. That's not the way truth usually appears. More likely than not it will be laboriously spelled out in obscure language and printed in some barely readable obscure font (figuratively speaking, you understand). Then one has to figure out how to implement the truth that one has understood (correctly or not). — Bitter Crank

Interesting question. 1633 - Galileo has just published Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems - proving, by a ''hypothetico-deductive methodology" that the earth orbits the sun and not the other way around. He was arrested, tried, and found grievously suspect of heresy - and it's suggested, by the care taken in subsequent works by other philosophers - Descartes, Rousseau - that this had a chilling effect on purely rational inquiry.

In due course, the sum effect was to divorce science as a burgeoning understanding of reality, from science as a means to technological power. However...

The interesting question is whether this was done knowingly, or did they truly not see or understand that Galileo's hypothetico-deductive method was the means to valid knowledge of a reality, they believed was Created by God. I like to believe they were as blind then as we are now, to the significance of valid knowledge of reality - that it was a mistake, and that they were concerned principally with the offense against the prevailing authoritative religious rationale, and did not even glimpse the value of an ability to establish valid knowledge.

In regard to your question, the point is - that it's the method that should have stood out as something cosmically significant, not any particular factoid about who orbits whom.

Even now, a coherent scientific understanding of reality has only really come together in the past fifty years, since the advent of computer technology - allowing for number crunching and the communication of large amounts of data. But there was ample opportunity before then, to recognize the magic in the method - and infer the profound importance of the truth of Creation systematically revealed by these means.

No offense, but I understand that this is just too vague to keep my interest. Let's try again in another thread, and thanks for the chat. — Jake

None taken. This is a political philosophy forum, and I'm seeking to do political philosophy - not chemistry and technical drawing. I can't give you any better answers than I have in that regard, but I can explain why science is the right answer - and how accepting that a scientific understanding of reality has the authority of truth, provides a political rationale for the application of technology on merit.

Your position, that technology itself is inherently problematic, is a position I've encountered, but haven't argued against before. It's sneaky nihilism - and I only ever found one cure for nihilism. Reject it, because... why not? It's not as if nihilism supports any value that requires one accept nihilism - so just walk away. Dare to hope.

Hydrogen is simply not a good energy carrier for a few reasons. First, it's not a liquid or solid at ambient temperature, which is a big inconvenience. Second, hydrogen is so small it diffuses through most metals causing micro-fractures leading to failure; solving these problems to power a rocket or in industrial processes can be solved ... but scaling to a transport infrastructure this problem is essentially unsolvable. Third liquid hydrogen boils off and easily slips through the tiniest cracks between parts making it extremely difficult to make a hermetic sealed hydrogen system at a lab level and simply impossible at an infrastructure scale. Hydrogen floats to the top of the atmosphere where it acts as a potent green house gas. — boethius

I read somewhere it's an indirect greenhouse gas - prolonging the lifetime of other pollutants in the atmosphere, which presumably would be less of a problem over time if we were drastically reducing fossil fuel use. The other issues are matters of materials science. I do not concede it's not possible. We have tried neither at this, nor a wide range of possible alternatives. Even if a hydrogen internal combustion engine HICE were not feasible to mass produce, though BMW have produced the Hydrogen 7 and leased them to prominent figures, there's still hydrogen as a store of energy to be burnt in power stations, cement factories, steel mills and so forth.

Long story short, if you have a lot of hydrogen you may as well solve all the above problems by reacting with carbon to make hydrocarbons and have all the benefits the energy density of hydrogen without the massive technological hurdles. Since there's excess carbon in the atmosphere it's easy to get to do this and means not only a cheaper infrastructure to build ... but an infrastructure that already exists. — boethius

I watched a video recently on fuel produced from captured carbon, and I would have to admit the incredible advantage of being ready for the tank of already existing vehicles. But at best it's a carbon neutral process - requiring a vast amounts of energy from renewable sources. to produce fuel that when burnt returns the captured carbon to the atmosphere. Is that good? What about the opportunity cost of that renewable energy in terms of other fuels burnt instead?

So the thesis of the OP is essentially correct, there's just no reason to use hydrogen by itself as an energy carrier. And since you'd need to make electricity first to make hydrogen to make hydrocarbons (or whatever analogous process), you may as well use that electricity directly for most transport needs. Electric trains, trams and batteries for personal transport is simply far more efficient if you already have electricity. "Synth-hydro-carb" fuel would still be useful for trucks and lorries and airplanes . — boethius

The question is where electricity is produced, and then how energy is stored and transported. Solar panels in deserts for example seem like a great idea until you consider transmission loss. Solar panels close to zones of industry and habitation occupy valuable real estate. Putting solar panels at sea, and using electricity and sea water to produce hydrogen as a store of energy, solves a lot of problems with resources that are available.

I read the rest and simply disagree that would be the implication.

You've misunderstood. I've said magically becoming rational was the natural course of human affairs, but a course we didn't take. It may seem strange to you to envisage, but then you are not who you might have been. Humankind struggled from animal ignorance into human knowledge over countless generations, and then balked at the prospect of actually knowing what's true. Had man in a worshipful manner - made it his vocation and duty to know what's true, and do what's right in terms of what's true - it would be as if a red carpet unfurled at his feet.

I'm not at all sure it does. I can really only describe the basic idea as well as I'm able and leave it to people more clever and credible than me.

I'm a little more confident that the technology I described would work. It could be done, and I set out to prove in principle that it could. Similarly however, there are people cleverer and more credible that I am. Is it really my place to dictate in detail how such an audacious broad brush stroke idea would be carried out in practice? Surely that would be for people to work out among themselves. It's their stuff!

Summary: One can get a profound change through the market mechanism when a new alternative is cheaper and better to the old one. Yet the typical solution is only to believe in regulation, restrictions and international agreements and not that the free market could (or would) change supply and demand itself. Hopefully I'm not confusing here. — ssu

Concise is better. Thanks. Fossil fuels ubiquitous position in the energy market relative to renewables makes this an inherently unjust calculus. I was asked - what the range of a hydrogen powered vehicle was, for example. But petroleum powered engines have been in continuous development for over a hundred years. It's rather the same with renewables. Being applied in a piecemeal fashion at the nexus of guilt and economic self interest is stunting the technology. Renewable energy technology doesn't need to be subsidized - it needs to be funded. An infrastructure that needs to be built like the rail network, or the canals, or the Romans and their roads. Only then will it be a fair comparison.

"The concrete industry is one of two largest producers of carbon dioxide (CO2), creating up to 5% of worldwide man-made emissions of this gas, of which 50% is from the chemical process and 40% from burning fuel." wiki

That is to say, cement is produced by driving off CO2 from calcium carbonate (limestone). — unenlightened

Lot of concrete in a nuclear power station.

In other news, as I tried to indicate earlier, the ocean is not as empty as it looks; covering it with solar cells is probably not as disastrous as covering a rainforest with solar cells, but not that far off. Why is life so complicated? — unenlightened

Covering the oceans completely would be disastrous - if it were even possible. The oceans are 7/10ths of the world's surface - so you'd pretty much have to scrape everything from every landmass to do it. I'm only suggesting a few thousand square kilometers. That's huge, but in terms of the size of the oceans - it's like putting a postage stamp in a football stadium, and you're worried about how the grass will grow?
There's very little life mid ocean anyway - most oceanic life lives on the continental shelves where there's nutrients washed into the sea. Mid ocean is a veritable desert.

Did I recommend this author, this book to you?

Too Much Magic: Wishful Thinking, Technology, and the Fate of the Nation by James Howard Kunstler

Kunstler details the nature of the environmental crises. While doing that he also punctures many a delusion about what is possible. For instance: "We'll build huge numbers of windmills and square miles of solar panels." Great idea. But... given that we are past peak oil, what will happen when our million windmills and millions of solar panels wear out? We still have relatively cheap petrochemicals with which to carry out this production. Forty years from now? Sixty? Much less oil available and much more expensive. I am thoroughly enthusiastic about windmills and solar, but a lot of energy is needed to build the steel masts from which the windmills are hung. I assume a fair amount of energy is required to build solar panels too and that they probably don't continue to work forever.

Kunstler's point is that there are no magical solutions to our several interlocked environmental crises. — Bitter Crank

Ahhh, the Malthusians - they are persistently gloomy. Thomas Robert Malthus FRS was an English cleric and scholar, influential in the fields of political economy and demography. He's famous for pointing out the discrepency between the geometric rate of population growth 2,4,8,16 etc, against the arithmetic rate 1, 2, 3, 4, etc, at which agricultural land could be increased. He predicted this would inevitably lead to mass starvation. He was wrong. Clearly, people are problem solvers. They multiply resources with knowledge and technological innovation. I don't need to read Knustler's book to know he's wrong. I can see the arithmetic of his argument a mile away - and while seemingly logical, it just doesn't model reality.

Take a larger view. in the years of WWII 1939-1945, horses were indispensable. Why? For one, they don't use oil. For two, they are strong. For three, they can be used flexibly. Four, Germany and the USSR still used horses for various purposes in 1938, and horses were part of military planning. — Bitter Crank

And what's more, you can't eat a tank!

The first computer was built in WWII. It took about 40 years for personal computers to make their appearance. By 1995. they were pretty much integrated into business, and people were buying computers for home use. So, about 50 years. — Bitter Crank

It wasn't actually the first computer, but that's another debate - one that ultimately resolves to the question of how one defines a computer. Interesting topic, but a discussion for later perhaps. Did you know the genius and national hero who designed his difference engine at Bletchely Park, Alan Turing, was hounded to suicide by the government for being gay? Tragic story. Another other subject.

I cannot however, accept this supports your conclusion that necessarily, it takes 50 years for innovation to take hold. Not least because there's a long history of computing machines before Turing. (Google Charles Babbage for instance.) Without descending too far into that argument, I'd suggest that you mistake the research and development time of various levels of technology, for the period over which acceptance of innovation takes place. The invention of the transistor was necessary to make home computing possible. It doesn't take 50 years once the technology exists.

The system I describe has all the thermodynamic efficiency of a steam train
— karl stone

Indeed, but if we could build large solar plants in the ocean at the equator, why wouldn't we just run a wire from the complex and plug it into the electrical distribution systems of India, China, SE Asia, Africa, or South America? — Bitter Crank

The short answers are transmission loss over distance, particularly at lower voltages, the night-time problem - and that, powering national grids would only solve that one problem. The approach I've described - solar panels floating on the ocean's surface, making hydrogen fuel and fresh water from sunlight and sea water, solves all those, and a number of other problems at the same time.

I've been attempting to say much more on this topic in the other thread, or we could do it here, either is fine. — Jake

Well, I could say a lot more about my approach too - but I'm not getting that you've fully come to grips with it. Or seek to come to grips with it! How should we proceed, given that - what I'm trying to say is that your conclusions are subsumed within my paradigm? We could talk about your thing exclusively, perhaps. Is there a name, or particular phrase - that sums up your approach?

Fundamentally, I am not asking man to manage the powers science makes available. I suggest they should be managed in relation to a modern day scientific understanding of reality; that is to say, the truth that provides the power should be taken on board in deciding how it is employed.

— karl stone

Ok, how does that work exactly? Can you be more specific? — Jake

Let's get your thing down first, because your insistence I don't understand, stands as an obstacle to explaining how your conclusions are subsumed under my paradigm.

I find your post very difficult to respond to. I don;t wish to be rude, but it's so wordy - I can't identify the points you're trying to make. Might I suggest, it's in part a matter of writing style. You seem to go for the stream of consciousness approach. It would be helpful to the reader if you could summarize, then elaborate. Because it's not like you don't pass through some interesting territories on this long rambling journey. I enjoyed reading your post. I just don't know how to respond except to say, that's interesting, thanks!

I certainly agree that from a scientific point of view it would be preferable to choose the cleaner and renewable energy over the cheapest energy. — ChatteringMonkey

I haven't made that argument. I have argued for the necessity of changing that equation, and described a possibly possible means to do so. I have argued that we can keep fossil fuels in the ground at zero sum cost by mortgaging them to the world. I hypothesize that by mortgaging fossil fuels - the world would have the debt in one hand and the money in the other - and it would therefore be a zero total cost.
Current interests are returned at a respectable level, the money is created to apply renewable energy technology, and the planet is saved! Hurrah!

But I have my doubts that markets would put the science above the profit motive. They typically don't make any value judgments aside from the profit motive, right. Because that's what the stockholders want, more return on investment. And you get more profit when you sell more products or services. So the consumer decides in the end, and he typically will favor the cheaper products and services. — ChatteringMonkey

If you google the phrase "feduciary duty to maximize shareholder value" the picture is mixed. Some say it's a myth. I don't know, but I suspect it would be legally problematic. Assuming at least it describes the coincidence of interests between investors and traders - I accept that is how the market works, but would point to the trap this makes of fossil fuels. They have enormous value - there's a powerful coincidence of interests, if not an actual legal obligation to liberate. The single investor in the market might choose to make an ethical stand, but that does not imply money will not find the opportunity. The only difference will be between who does what - not what is done.

I do not accept the idea of consumer sovereignty on the grounds of cognitive overload. It's not the individual's responsibility to know, and by consumer choice, decide how things are produced. Consumers are neither qualified nor responsible. As an example, since the climate report was published, there's a rash of video blogs on how veganism can save the world. Individual responsibility. Instead of governmental and corporate responsibility. So they can keep pumping the black gold while I'm filling up on lentils? Another example - I've got six different colored bins in front of my house - and there's morons and criminals sitting idle as I read in the newspaper, (red bin) despite my best efforts most of it goes to landfill anyway. There are things that need doing only government and industry can do.

I don't see that dynamic changing any time soon, but one of three things could happen that will make renewable energy more viable economically : 1) the consumer will start to value 'clean and renewable' more as the situation gets more dire 2) governments start imposing more pollution taxes which drives up the price of the old energy sources, and 3) renewable energy becomes cheaper and cheaper in comparison, as technology advances and old energy sources get more expensive because of depletion. — ChatteringMonkey

So your answer is the same - hope the consumer makes ethical rather than price point choices, tax industry into submission, bankruptcy and consolidation, and pray science provides another miracle! Isn't that how we got here? The solution in my view is responsibility to a scientific understanding of reality at the point of production, not the point of sale. What do I know about how anything's made? And furthermore, I paid my money for a good or a service. I don't want to be inducted into the supply chain as an adviser or a busboy.

Right, though there are only carbon costs if we assume that the energy used for construction or looking after the nuclear waste is itself carbon energy? — ChatteringMonkey

Yes. A reasonable assumption in my view. The main energy cost is concrete, both the production of cement, a massively energy intensive industry, and transport of enormous mass by fossil fuel powered vehicles. There's also steel production and delivery. And that's not even counting the mini-fridge in the workman's cabin! That's so old it doesn't even have a sticker indicating its energy rating!

Well, I can't blame you for not replying. Thanks Jake. Good chat. Thanks everyone. I'm going to leave it there.

The nature of science is to develop knowledge, which typically is then converted in to some form of power, ie. an ability to manipulate the environment. — Jake

That certainly could be said about the nature of science - and how it is employed in society, but much more might also be said about the nature of science, and I would argue - how therefore, science should be employed in society.

The nature of human beings is that we are imperfect, able to successfully manage some power, but not an unlimited amount of power. — Jake

That certainly can be said about human beings - and how they handle power.

Thus, at some point the nature of science and the nature of human beings come in to conflict. Science keeps developing more and more knowledge/power, and at some point reaches and exceeds the limits of the governing mechanism, human beings. — Jake

Because of what else can be said about the nature of science - and how therefore it should be employed, that doesn't necessarily follow. Fundamentally, I am not asking man to manage the powers science makes available. I suggest they should be managed in relation to a modern day scientific understanding of reality; that is to say, the truth that provides the power should be taken on board in deciding how it is employed. Employing hugely powerful technologies with no regard to the understanding of reality that provided for them is grossly irresponsible. But it's something people are entirely unaware of - and so, it's not blameworthy irresponsibility. Forgive them for they know not what they do. It's a mistake - and a fairly understandable one at that.

Your thread argues for the science religion dogma, the "more is better" relationship with knowledge. That dogma is the cause of the problems you are trying to solve. — Jake

You have identified the phenomenon, certainly - but the cause is buried deep in the history of the ideological development of civilizations; which arguably, is fantastic for us - because, we can learn the lesson of our error, and thereby claim the full, scientifically advised functionality of technology - to solving the problems we've created charting a course - probably not more than a few degrees off true north, over a very long time.

If I knew what stolen consent meant I might be able to respond better. — fdrake

I did propose an entirely hypothetical scenario above. Let me get that for you:

Let us say for example that a government put a question to an electorate in the form of a referendum - and then ran a false and divisive campaign for a particular outcome. Let's further imagine that the vote confirmed the proposition. Would that not constitute stolen consent? That is, consent to act on the proposition. It's not an oxymoron as government would appear upon the basis of the vote alone to have consent - but perhaps because the voters were misled, perhaps one could say - consent was stolen. Or do you not think a false and divisive campaign sufficient grounds? — karl stone

Stolen consent might not be defined, but manufactured consent is probably well understood at this point! — fdrake

So you're saying that the manufacture of consent might have the implication that consent is stolen? Because, to a greater or lesser degree - all consent is manufactured. So defining the idea of stolen consent would be to determine when that manufacture was legitimate, and when not?

It seems at least close to an oxymoron - if something is taken with consent, it is a gift; if it is stolen it is taken without consent. Not that you cannot use an oxymoron now and again, but you cannot expect analysis to reveal its meaning. — unenlightened

That is to speak of the nature of consent, certainly, but absent of the political context. Let us say for example that a government put a question to an electorate in the form of a referendum - and then ran a false and divisive campaign for a particular outcome. Let's further imagine that the vote confirmed the proposition. Would that not constitute stolen consent? That is, consent to act on the proposition. It's not an oxymoron as government would appear upon the basis of the vote alone to have consent - but perhaps because the voters were misled, perhaps one could say - consent was stolen. Or do you not think a false and divisive campaign sufficient grounds?

No replies? Surely, the purpose of political philosophy is to identify interesting concepts, and define them in logical, legal and philosophical terms. I happen to think this an interesting idea worthy of definition - and I invite informed parties to help do so.

I suggest not throwing it around as a label. I don't want examples. I want to define the concept if it is not already defined in the cannon of political philosophy.

The problem of population, 7-11 billion, is that it is up against an agricultural environment that will be deteriorating, even if we make some progress toward limited CO2/methane/other. Those are:

All the arable land we have is now being used for agriculture. There are no significant idle reserves. (What about northern lands becoming agricultural? The soils that are now very cold or frozen are not, and will not be suitable for agriculture. What about irrigation? All of the fresh water that is suitable for irrigation has been tapped. Drinking water has also passed its peak. The Asian glaciers are shrinking rapidly. In 50 years, the temperature in many agricultural areas will be too hot to work in for much or all of the day. (When the temperature and humidity combined make it impossible to cool off, people start dying from heat.) Fisheries productivity is in decline.

Agriculture, under the best of circumstances, is risky: too hot, too cold, too wet, too dry, too many insects, not enough bees, plant diseases, soil exhaustion, etc. There is usually enough world production to keep people fed, but an increasingly warm, erratic climate doesn't favor agriculture. Projecting enough production to feed 11 billion ignores erratic and fast climate change.

Not despairing yet? — Bitter Crank

A little daunted perhaps - but despairing? No! I believe these challenges are amenable to redress or mitigation. We'd maximize our ability for redress and mitigation by accepting a scientific understanding of reality in common, as a basis to apply technology. But even if we don't - there's a possibility that somehow, science is so powerfully true that it's adequate despite our failure to put the science out front, ahead of the ideology.

Declining hydrocarbon output: Much of high agricultural productivity depends on cheap, abundant oil and gas for chemicals, fertilizers, and fuel. We are past peak oil. We can not feed 7 billion people, maybe not 5 billion using animal traction, organic farming, and the like. We could do that at maybe 2-3 billion under good conditions. Those days are over.
Getting the population down to 2-3 billion or less will come about if the species crashes. That could happen if global warming becomes too severe in the 22nd century (only 82 years away). — Bitter Crank

Well, as long as you make it! Eh?

I am pessimistic about all techno-fixes. I like techno-fixes. However, it does not appear that the we have the will or the political means to slam the brakes on CO2/methane/other. If we (the whole world) did have the will, the ways, and the means to abruptly cease CO2/methane/other output, we could, perhaps, solve the problem. But we don't. NO country is meeting even the modest targets set recent agreements. — Bitter Crank

That's why, I argue we need to change our ideological approach - putting the science out front as a guide, with our ideological selves following along behind. I appreciate that requires some degree of sophistication from people who have genuine beliefs that are inimical to science. I appreciate also, that it requires a willingness on the part of the rich and powerful to see their interests served by this approach. I think those are the real obstacles we face, but the technology available is adequate to meet the challenge.

Why not? Why are they not?

One reason is that major technological changes (like from horse power to machine power, like telephone, radio, television, railroads, highways, airplanes, medicine, engineering, etc. etc. etc.) require around 40 to 50 years to propagate throughout society. It isn't just behavior change; it's all sorts of changes. We have not committed to abandoning fossil fuels, so the 40-50 year change over hasn't begun. — Bitter Crank

Not necessarily.

New York 1900 - spot the car!
New York 1913 - spot the horse!
https://www.businessinsider.com/5th-ave-1900-vs-1913-2011-3?IR=T

Yes, there are solar panels and windmills here and there. But transportation in the developed world is still predicated on cars and trucks. Heating and cooling still are largely dependent on electricity from fossil fuels. A rising standard of living around the world requires more production of everything, and a lot of waste.

It isn't that I think we can not do anything; theoretically we can. But we run up against time (we waited too long) and material limitations on what is possible in a short period of time, because people generally don't worry about threats unless they are unmistakably visible -- like seeing the tornado about 3 blocks away. That's just the way we are wired. — Bitter Crank

I'd agree with that. People are inherently conservative. methodical - if not hidebound. But we can jump on things and make dramatic changes very quickly when all the stars align. Are they not lining up for you at all?

Not quite it, but thank you for reading enough to get that far. — Jake

Jake, I read the whole thing, and a number of comments on the thread.

Also, I didn't miss this:

Where I live, we just narrowly missed getting hit by a Category 4 hurricane which just ripped through the Gulf of Mexico. — Jake

Saw the footage on TV, and wondered if you're okay.