You "forgot" to include a column for "raining and not raining". :roll:

It's just as true for XOR. — Banno

What does that mean in English? If it means "raining or not raining, but not both" then it is not always true, but more likely always false, because it is mostly always both raining and not raining on Earth, depending on time and location. You'll need an argument to convince me otherwise; dogmatic pronouncements are not going to cut it, matey.

How can it be true (under my interpretation) regardless of location if it can be both raining and not raining at the same place at different times or at the same time at different places?

I agree with you that it's always true if the "or" is not considered as exclusive and as implying "either raining or not raining, but not both", but it should have been clear to you, if you were paying attention, that I already acknowledged that.

Also, why don't you save time by answering questions posed to you in plain English?

Your reply was a blanket denial of the conclusion of the research. — Benkei

It was not a "blanket denial of the research" but an expression of doubt that the research could be relevant to the point I made that most people don't wish to have their accustomed lifestyles disrupted, and will vote against any proposal to do so. Can you imagine what people would say to a government that told them they must dispose of their SUV and buy a tiny car instead, or stop traveling by air, or actually stop traveling unless on foot, by bicycle or by public transport, because it is a privilege the poor in third world countries don't enjoy?

I can! That's an intuition of mine to be sure, but I think it's accurate, and I know without reading it that no research could prove that wrong, even if they surveyed everyone, because what people say they will agree to and what they actually will agree to, when it comes to the crunch, can be two very different things, as I already suggested. I actually don't believe the majority of people would even say they would agree to such measures, let alone actually agree to them.

Not if the "or" is thought of as exclusive, as in "it's either raining or it's not raining". Do you take the "or" to be exclusive, or do you think that if it is both raining and not raining, which it is probably doing most of the time on Earth, that that state of affairs satisfies the formula?

That depends on whether you count it raining and not raining at different times at the same place or at different places at the same time as counterexamples to "it's raining or it's not raining". It's a matter of interpretation; is its both raining and not raining a counter-example under your interpretation? If not, then what do you take the formula to mean?

Maybe next time just say you haven't read it, or better yet, don't reply as if you have, instead of this nonsense where you're now pretending it's my fault for you not having read it. — Benkei

I never pretended to have read the linked research; if you thought that it was entirely your own imagining. But wait, you didn't think I had read it anyway:

Your reaction seems to indicate you haven't. — Benkei

Don't pretend that I have blamed you for my not having read it, either. I don't blame you for anything other than expecting me to read it, rather than taking the trouble yourself to quote the relevant part(s).

:roll:

No, not a long stretch at all, because both formulas are untrue without implicit reference to time and place. Unless you have a counter-argument good enough to convince that it really is a long stretch.

But "Its raining, or it isn't" says nothing about time or place. It still seems odd to insist that it does, clandestinely. — Banno

If it is to be true "it's raining, or it isn't" implicitly references time and place, since it can be raining at one place and/ or time and not raining at another place and/or time at either the same place or time (but not both, obviously). The same applies to "it's not (raining and not-raining)".

This seems to have the odd result that the sentence "it is raining or it is not raining" is true because it corresponds to anywhere.

And here I am again at a loss to say what that correspondence amounts to. "it is raining or it is not raining" does not seem to mean "anywhere". — Banno

It corresponds to the fact that it is always either raining or not raining at any place and time; shortening that to just "anywhere" which says nothing about time or raining is misleading.

Not so much because that's not an exclusive or. You're talking about something else. — Srap Tasmaner

That'd be ~(R & ~R). Not the same. Unless you are Meta. — Banno

That's right, my hasty bad; it corresponds to the fact that at any place and time it is always either raining or not raining, which amounts to much the same thing.

R v ~ R is true. Does R v ~R correspond to anything? — Agent Smith

It corresponds to the fact that it is never, at the same place and time, both raining and not raining.

But it wasn't an aspect of mind.. It was simply the foundational principle that he named "will" for good or bad. It was to denote that the root of existence is the principle of striving (pace Buddhism). It does have similarities to conatus but whilst conatus was sort of an enjoyment of being in its fullness, will is a negative principle. That is to say, it is always becoming, something that it is not- at least in the world as representation. — schopenhauer1

Spinoza's idea of conatus is precisely that of "striving", not "sort of an enjoyment of being in its fullness"; that would be more thriving.

I don't see will as a "negative principle" at all; will is a positive striving for what one wills. This is something we recognize in ourselves and generally project anthropomorphically onto other lifeforms as, most basically, will to live. But we also have the ideas of the will to procreate, the will to consume, the will to seek pleasure and avoid pain, the will to understand, the will to know, the will to possess, the will to be (this or that) and so on. We even have the idea of thanatos; the will to die.

As far as using one's subjective consciousness as "proof" that there is some striving force at play in existence-writ-large is an interesting one. I don't know that I would fully agree with that step he is doing. — schopenhauer1

As I said, I think it is an absolutizing anthropomorphic projection.

So I think here you are demonstrating a misunderstanding of how Schopenhauer is using "Will". It is NOT just a psychological aspect. It is a metaphysical principle at play. It may be unfortunate that he calls it "Will" because of precisely this misunderstanding whereby it is confused with other things. — schopenhauer1

No, I understand very well that is the way he is using it, and I think it is, as I said, an anthropomorphic reification. What else could he call it without losing the character he portrays it as exemplifying?

Now, the ineffable part is mentioned because if you know of Schop's philosophy, his main recommendation is to escape one's own willing nature through ascetic practice. The question remains, how can one escape from something that is a sort of totality of being? That's where I mentioned that Will has the aspect of representation but there is also the aspect of Will submerged beyond the representation. Perhaps that is how one reaches a sort of Nirvana-like state whilst retaining Will. — schopenhauer1

Yes, I understand all that and its commonality with certain interpretations of the Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism. But I don't see escape or ascetism as being valorized by those practices, but rather an attitude of calm contemplation and acceptance, which is exemplified in the idea found in both teachings that samsara is nirvana.

We, as long as we live, are never going to lack will, and nor would we want to; it is attachment to that will, that is being unable to happily accept when things don't go our way, that is the real problem. So, will is not the negative, it is attachment that is the negative, and I cannot think of a philosopher whose life shows more attachment than Schopenhauer.

Did you look at the research I shared? Your reaction seems to indicate you haven't. A ban on combustion engines is an actual proposed climate policy in the survey of the top most research paper. So people are prepared to do this, provided rich people are under the same ban. — Benkei

I don't have time to read things others reference. If you want to make a point of argument, then quote the referenced paper. The fact that the researchers might be proposing banning combustion engines (all combustion engines or just some, and over what time frame?) does not equate to acceptance of the idea by the general populace, and nor does it equate to the proposal being actually viable.

Of course the will may be thought of as having an unconscious aspect, but I don't see this as constituting a good analogy with the notion of the absolutely unknowable. For a start what is unconscious, unknown may become conscious and known. That said, it may reasonably be thought that there is always an ineffable aspect to anything: intelligence, love, fear, beauty, goodness, wisdom, whatever and of course including will, but that just speaks to the limits of human knowledge and understanding. Will is nothing special, it's just one aspect of life, or more accurately one way of thinking about certain aspects of becoming.

I don't interpret everything through the lens of Schopenhauer (who is not a second-rate philosopher). Why do you think he is second-rate? — schopenhauer1

I think I've already answered that. His philosophy lacks depth, subtlety and nuance; it's a bastardization of Kant blended with his misunderstanding of the Upanishads and Buddhism. He cannot be compared with the greats, and his thought consists in an absolutization of what is merely an aspect of life. I have a similar criticism of Nietzsche's 'will to power', which I think is the weakest part of his thought, but the difference is that Nietzsche is a much more subtle thinker in my view. And this is only my view after all, as in all aesthetic matters there is no fact of the matter.

Because space, time, and causation are not just space-for-us, time-for-us, causation-for-us. It is rather space/time/causality are but conditions of the mind imposed on the thing(s)-in-it(them)self. Thus the thing-in-itself is not conditioned by space/time/causality. — schopenhauer1

I don't agree. Just as things are things-for-us, meaning things as experienced and conceived of by us, so are space, time and causation such as they are experienced and conceived of by us.

I am quite familiar with Schopenhauer's philosophy, have read WWR, and secondary works by McGee and others, and I think his philosophy is pretty superficial and uninteresting compared to the likes of Spinoza, Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Heidegger, Husserl and others.

Schop himself I believe addressed this and really meant to say that Will is really only talked about in the negative (what it can't be).. — schopenhauer1

Calling it "Will" is already talking about it in the most positive way. And I think he pinched the idea from Spinoza's "conatus" in any case. The difference is that Spinoza did not reify conatus as "substance". The idea of "will" or volition is the idea of just one aspect of mind or awareness.

Accordingly in this inner knowledge the thing in itself has indeed in great measure thrown off its veil, but still does not yet appear quite naked.

My criticism of Schopenhauer's understanding of the "thing in itself", and of his critique of Kant's idea of "things in themselves" (that there cannot be things in themselves because there can be no space or time, which make possible differentiation, in the noumenal, and that since there also can be no causation in the noumenal, that Kant's idea that things in themselves cause the things we perceive is incoherent) is that it overlooks the implications of Kant's idea, implications that Kant himself may not have addressed (I say "may not" because I have not studied Kant's works exhaustively, a lifetime's study, and so cannot say for sure whether he did address these implication explicitly).

So, Kant's idea is that if there are representations, then there must be "something" which is represented, and which is not the representation itself. Things-for-us are representations, according to Kant, and so there must be things-in-themselves that are not those representations, but which give rise to them.

To repeat Schopenhauer's criticism, there cannot be things in themselves, for the reasons given above, so there must be only the thing in itself, absolute, non-spatiotemporal and undifferentiated. But this reifies what for Kant was unknowable things into a transcendent absolute, the very kind of reification which Kant sought to show was not justifiable by pure reason.

So, to get to the "implications" mentioned above, if everything we experience is a for-us, things-for-us, which leads logically to the idea of things-in themselves, then why would it not follow that space-for-us, time-for-us, causation-for-us lead logically to the ideas of space-in-itself, time-in-itself and causation-in-itself, thus defusing Schopenhauer's whole critique and transcendent reification of the thing-in-itself?

Can’t argue with that list. I’ve been meaning to read Hegel. Seems daunting but probably isn’t once one starts. — Xtrix

Hegel's prose is dense; and he's not the most elegant writer. I've only read the Phenomenology (and I cannot claim to have thoroughly and closely read that), and secondary works and lecture series, mostly that deal with the Phenomenology. I have this, which looks like it would be a comprehensive introduction, on my shelves but I haven't read it yet. (Too many books and other pursuits and not enough time)

I don't find anything to disagree with in what you've written here. The only point I'd make is that when we are considering long-term austerity measures you can always get an opposition party coming along and saying they will remove them after being re-elected, which can rather disrupt the required long-term continuity of effective strategies.

So this, for example:

Either way the people are going to suffer. Best to explain it to them that this transition is necessary and inevitable, and that the alternative is far worse for themselves, their kids and grandkids. I don’t think people are as addicted to meat and cars as much as we think. If we give more options and stop brainwashing people through advertising and media propaganda, we wouldn’t be in this situation to begin with. — Xtrix

which is pretty much what I have said governments should be telling people, but I believe won't for the reasons I've already given, would need to have bipartisan support.

I think that’s a bit harsh. I think there’s plenty to learn from Schopenhauer, and he’s an excellent writer — very clear. I also think his interpretation of Kant is a good one. Although he does take some liberties… — Xtrix

I agree he's a very good writer; I just don't think that highly of his ideas, or his interpretation and critique of Kant. A second rate philosopher as compared to first rates such as Kant, Hegel, Kierkegaard and Heidegger is still pretty good compared to a tenth rate. Anyway, it's just my opinion...

The Ein Sof is the unknowable nothingness/everythingness/infinite/unlimited/unified (you can only get at it from the negative of what it's not) aspect of God (Will below the iceberg).. — schopenhauer1

The "Ein Sof" in Jewish mystical thought has nothing whatever to do with "Will". And the creator God is not merely blind will either. Why do you seek to interpret everything through the lens of a second-rate philosopher?

Well there's a lot to be said about that, of course. But aren't you here making the case that government really is the most important factor? Because if the responsibility lies in the mass of people -- because they're the ones who elect the leaders -- rather than, say, their consumption habits, what else is this except blaming the electorate for the poor decisions of leaders?

This may be correct, of course, but it seems to me it assumes the power and importance of government and politics -- a point I thought you were arguing against earlier. — Xtrix

Right, in a way I think government is the most important factor, since they make the policy decisions. But government, even one with the best will in the world, can be rendered impotent if what it proposes is unpalatable to the people. Here in Australia, the downfall of Kevin Rudd came about due to the perception that his proposed carbon tax would be seen as a "great big tax" (as the new opposition leader later framed it).

The liberal (conservative) party ousted their leader Malcolm Turnbull who had agreed to sign off on the tax. Rudd was replaced by Julia Gillard, who shortly had to campaign for new elections, and she did so promising not to introduce a carbon tax. But because of not having enough seats to form government she capitulated to the greens, and went back on that promise. Of course next election she was voted out as Tony Abbott, the man the liberals replaced Malcolm Turnbull with, promised to repeal the "great big tax".

You mention the peoples' "consumption habits": it is my opinion that any government that threatens to diminish or impact those in any significant way will not last long. I think people generally want governments to "fix this global warming issue" without impacting on their accustomed lifestyles,

What about the underdeveloped countries: how are they going to be "brought out of poverty" if decarbonization is inevitably going to cause a decline in general prosperity, and the more so, the more quickly it is brought about?

I'm talking about giving up the SUVs and driving tiny cars, or taking public transport, or using bicycles, giving up the international and domestic air travel and reducing general consumption to a minimum. Of course all these thing would in turn be very bad for the economies, leading to further drops in general prosperity. Whether the majority of people would be willing to do all these things I don't know, since I can't ask the majority of people on account of there are way too many of them, and I'm not sure I could trust what people say in answer to a hypothetical question anyway, but I sure as hell don't believe the politicians will be asking them to make such sacrifices.

We should decarbonize as quickly as possible. — Xtrix

Sure, you just need to make sure your projected timeframes are achievable, otherwise your strategy will not be adequate to the task.

Most of his points seem to be like this. Nitpicking. — Xtrix

I don't think so. Of course you are entitled to your opinion, and it's not a point that would be easy to argue either way. Smil's knowledge seems encyclopedic, and I have no reason to think he's "bought" so I'd trust his expert judgement over yours.

This idea that the onus is really on the masses is weak. — Xtrix

The idea is not weak in a democracy; the "masses" are the electorate, and the government will be voted out in a few years if it displeases the electorate.

Let’s get moving and talk about the solutions rather than chastising people for being too ambitious— or taking them to “get real.” That smells of egoism — “I, the true objective scientist, have a grasp on reality and will tell it to you straight.” I don’t think that attitude is particularly useful— it could do far more harm than good. — Xtrix

This just seems like tendentious rhetoric to me, not at all appropriate as a criticism of what Smil is saying. The "masses" don't listen to Smil anyway. Anyway don't bother yourself about my perspective...carry on...

Because picturing "nothing" is scary, because death is scary? Also about the meaning of life, there isn't any, why don't we all commit mass suicide? — Skalidris

There is, potentially at least, a plethora of meanings of life. Why should there be only one? The very thought that there is only one forecloses the possibility of people finding, creating their own meanings. This is what Nietzsche meant when he spoke about the inherent nihilism in Christianity.



:up:

Schop says that the narrow door to the truth is that our bodies appears to us as both external physical objects (as representation) and as something we can experience such as touch hunger and desire I.e as will. And because our bodies appears to us as both will and as representation-the noumenal world is entirely constituted out of will. — Albero

To frame all that we experience "interiorly" or "somatically", that is whatever perceptual access we have to the body/mind, as "will", as Schopenhauer does or as 'will to power' as Nietzsche does, is, in my view very one-sided.

The noumenal, as Kant thought it, is what we can only think of as what lies beyond experience altogether; the logical counterpart to 'things-as experienced' is 'things in themselves". So, I think Schopenhauer was both a very poor interpreter, and a very poor critic, of Kant's philosophy.

Here's another example which might be easier for you to relate to. My wife and I sometimes will go out to an event. The next day we may discuss what happened at the event. Most times we have conflicting descriptions about various details. Since the two descriptions are both honest opinions, and they directly conflict one another, we can conclude that an honest opinion about what happened is not the same thing as an accurate description of what happened. — Metaphysician Undercover

I grant that when it comes to extended or complex events people can fail to notice and/or remember things. An honest account in those kinds of cases need not be a completely) true account. But it's not black and white, and the point is that, insofar as one's attention and memory have reliably informed them of some aspects of the event, then an honest account of what is remembered will be an accurate, that is a true, if not a complete, account. I haven't suggested that people are infallible. But the main point is that we think that there is, even if it is not realizable, a true account of all events, and that if someone were to be able to give such an account it would necessarily also be an honest account.

Smil is right but the problem is that then folk start accepting that there won’t be any orderly transition so the game becomes about survivalist scenarios, both at personal and state levels.

The calculus quickly gets ugly. — apokrisis

I think you would be right assuming that most people cannot accept the personal sacrifices that would be necessary, in terms of reduction of energy and general consumption.

So it seems we will muddle on in light of the (ig)noble lies that sooth the anxieties of the masses, and line the pockets of the predators.

Smil mostly offers analyses that purport to show how things are and what is achievable. I think he would say there's no point telling people we should decarbonize quickly when it is not possible. Any strategy worth promoting should be viable,and if Smil is right, then touting the idea that the problem is merely political and that good solutions are mostly being disrupted by a recalcitrant fossil fuel industry is counterproductive. Our whole civilization is a gigantic. complex, interconnected and interdependent fossil fuel industry.

I agree with Smil that people should be told the truth, which is that we all have to use much less energy if we want to ameliorate (probably the best we can hope for) global warming while we try to make the inevitably slow transition to more sustainable energy sources. So Smil doesn't say it is hopeless and we should just continue business as usual, but he says that our strategies must be realistic or we will be walking blind into a worse catastrophe than we would have if we faced the hard reality. Of course the problem is political, not for the usual reasons it is said to be so, but because governments, and especially democratically elected governments, don't want to, for all the obvious reasons, confront their peoples with such hard truths.

Now if we look at what "one's honest opinion" means, and what "an accurate portrayal of what happened" means, we see a huge gap between these two. — Metaphysician Undercover

Why would an honest opinion about, say, what happened not be an accurate account of what happened? Perhaps you could give an example showing how these might diverge.

The point, lost, is that there seems to be nothing in common in the correspondence in each case. — Banno

I don't see that; it seems to me that the logic in common is simply correspondence of what we say (or not) with some kind of actuality. For me it starts with being able to say meaningful things about experienced and imagined things; without that basic correspondence between saying and seeing/ imagining, we've got nothing. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about that: I'm not going to labour the point.

The commonality seems to be correspondence between saying and seeing, or actuality, however it is conceived.

"The whole is greater than the sum of the parts" is true ≡ The whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
To what does this correspond?

"Frodo walked in to Mordor" is true ≡ Frodo walked in to Mordor.
To what does this correspond?

"Frodo walked in to Sydney" is true ≡ Frodo walked in to Sydney.
To what does this correspond?

"No bachelor is married" is true ≡ No bachelor is married.
To what does this correspond?

"All bachelors are married" is true ≡ all bachelors are married.
To what does this correspond?

"This sentence is false" is true ≡ this sentence is false
To what does this correspond?

Ands so on. By the time you give an account of correspondence, there is nothing left. — Banno

The answer is that the whole formulations do not correspond to anything, but the underlying logic is that the quoted sentence on the left in each case corresponds to an actuality it represents, as it is used on the right, if the sentence is true.

"The whole is greater than the sum of its parts" corresponds, if true, to the whole being greater than the sum of its parts.

"Frodo walked into Mordor" corresponds to Frodo walking into Mordor, as depicted in Lord of the Rings.

"Frodo walked into Sydney" does not correspond to anything since the fictional character Frodo was never depicted by his creator as walking into Sydney.

You get the picture, correspondence is most easily understood, it is the model we all use every day and the one exemplified by the T-sentence..You'll only confuse yourself if you try to overthink it.

I don't quite understand your use of "contingent" here. If you ask someone to tell the truth about something that happened, and the person gives you an honest reply, there is no necessity which would allow you to conclude that the person's reply is an accurate portrayal of what happened. The person might have a faulty memory, as we all do to some extent. This produces the need to allow for all sorts of varying degrees of what you call accuracy, depending on what features of the particular occurrence you are asking the person to describe. — Metaphysician Undercover

What could a truthful account of an event be if not an accurate portrayal of what happened? The question is not about how we can know whether an account is truthful or not. Taking your radical skeptical line we could never know. I could have witnessed the same event someone is giving an account of, and so be in a position to judge whether the account were truthful or not, but according to your line of reasoning, my memory might be faulty, which means I could never be in a position to judge the truthfulness of any account of anything.

But the point is we must understand what it would mean to be able to judge whether some account were truthful or not, in order to be skeptical about our ability to do so.

The point is that there is no necessary relation between giving an honest and accurate account, and the account corresponding to to whatever it is purported to be an account of. — Metaphysician Undercover

What do you mean by asking for a "necessary relation"? Aren't all relations contingent...on context? The contingent relation would be one of correlation; we can see that the description is an accurate portrayal of what is described, can't we? At least we feel convinced that we can, and felling convinced is just that: a feeling; If we feel convinced, then what more can be said? Unless someone were to come up with a an argument powerful enough to unseat that feeling. How often have you seen that happening?

I don't think so. Most uses of "truth" point to honesty, as in "are you telling the truth?". It's just a certain type of philosopher, practising a defective form of epistemology, who wants to reduce "telling the truth" to a "relationship between propositional beliefs, and states-of-affairs". — Metaphysician Undercover

What does telling the truth consist in if not giving an honest and accurate account. What does giving an honest and accurate account consist in if not a correspondence of the the account with whatever it is (purporting to be) an account of?

Of course. The greenie calculation was that the carrying capacity of an ecologically pristine Earth was a max of around half a billion - living on permaculture and PV panels.

But what is the politics of selling that equation to the masses?

Doesn’t it become rational to say instead what the fuck, let’s jam the foot to the floor and just blast the rig through this shit, honey, in best Hollywood style.

If you just looked at the tech, it was always possible to believe we could outrun fate. — apokrisis

It's a hard sell to be sure! I don't know about "rational" but the "jam the foot to the floor" attitude, although not the one consciously held, seems to be the unconscious underlying motivation.

Yes, the "tech", the "tech", the bleeding, fucking edge "tech"; we may still "outrun fate", but at what cost?

The delusion still persists. I mentioned Musk and geoengineering. That is only going to be a scaled up version of the private enterprise escapade where a fishing boat dumped iron sulphate in the cod fishing grounds off Canada - an ecological “win-win” in increasing plankton growth and carbon capture.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/oct/15/pacific-iron-fertilisation-geoengineering — apokrisis

Yep, unthinking, uncaring, reckless profiteering. :roll:

A quick solution, I like it; quite unfortunate that it doesn't appeal to you or to me. — Agent Smith

It would appeal to me greatly if it was doable. And I'm not saying it shouldn't be attempted; and a slow transition made; any diminishment of energy derivation from fossil fuels should help to some degree.

The 3rd world will have to be the bigger man so to speak. — Agent Smith

Right, tell them that.

There it is, the dark side of democracy. — Agent Smith

In moments of crisis (which with humanity seems to be more or less most of the time) the best governance would seem to be enlightened autocracy, but where, o where is such a rare beast to be found?

The problem is only really that the heat can’t escape if we wrap the planet in a carbon blanket. So official thinking is not anti-growth. It is about how to maximise growth rates given this physical constraint. — apokrisis

Right, that is the specific greenhouse problem. But there are many others which have arisen due to the fossil-fuel given capacity for exponential growth: impoverished soils, destruction of habitat, extinction of species, depleted fisheries, general industrial chemical pollution of soil, water and air, diminishing water resources, the likelihood of pandemics, and of course, the likelihood of ongoing resource wars.

Even if we could instantly solve the global warming issue; there would remain a whole host of other problems. The basic problem is there are are just too many of us, all aspiring to the high life now.

:up: I think it's kind of an irony that people think the problem is merely political, when it seems that the only sense in which the problem is significantly political consists in the fact that politicians won't admit that it is far more than just a political problem. To admit that would be to admit that they cannot come up with viable solutions. Perhaps they dare not even admit that to themselves.

This means that politicians won't tell people that if we want to somewhat ameliorate (probably the best we can hope for) what seems likely to be the catastrophic effects of human induced global warming, then the best solution would be to use as little energy as possible, and in general consume as little as possible.

But then, it's also kind of like the "prisoner's dilemma" in that no one wants to be the bunny who sacrifices, when they think that hardly anyone else will, a fact which would also render the sacrifices of the willing impotent, almost useless, given the scope of the problem.

Well we can hash that out some time on the climate change thread perhaps. — Xtrix

I'm following Smil and what seems plausible given the immense size and complexity of the fossil fueled energy infrastructure. I'm always open to counterarguments, of course, and in fact I would love to be wrong.

What a load of shit! Not even worthy of comment...