I don't see it that way. I'm pointing toward a scientific understanding of reality as a trustworthy rationale for the application of technology - not to myself. I invite you to conclude that it is possible for humankind to survive - and then there will be two of us!

Sums up your position pretty well. No empirical support whatsoever but repeating the same messianic sermon at every opportunity with a faux shock that anyone could be so crazy as to think otherwise. — Isaac

It's not an unreasonable question to ask - if it is possible that humankind might survive? Turns out it is possible - and here's how! What's messianic about that?

From an energy theoretical point of view that might be true, but I suspect there are practical and technological reasons why it isn't used more as of now. I don't know enough about the technology to judge it myself, but I do know one of the research centres of my county has been trying to develop this for years now, with only moderate success. For instance they had some serious setback because drilling apparently caused seismic activity in the region. So sure, by all means why not use a virtually unlimited pool of energy, but you do have to have the technology working first. — ChatteringMonkey

This is one option which has been used for years—nothing new. But we need more than geothermal. You have to have the right conditions for it to be viable. It may work well in Iceland or Hawaii, but it can’t work everywhere. Wind, solar, hydro, and nuclear are all going to be necessary. Becoming dogmatic about one option, or treating it as a silver bullet, isn’t helpful. — Xtrix

Likely at the global scale, energy production will always be a "diverse mix", that's for sure. In my view, geothermal has been used quite a long time in places with volcanic activity. How about in Finland, where there is a solid bedrock of stone with only ancient traces of past volcanic activity? — ssu

Those are reasonable concerns I'm in no position to refute empirically, but nonetheless, I think otherwise. The word 'geothermal' covers a lot of ground - pun intended. A wide range of technologies that draw heat from the ground, are described as geothermal. I prefer to use the term magma energy to describe a form of geothermal a little closer to the bone.

I think vast quantities of 'recoverable' geothermal heat can be harnessed by drilling close to magma chambers and subduction zones in the earth's crust. There must necessarily be mile after cubic mile of rock heated to hundreds of degrees centigrade, we could drill into, or through. I imagine two technologies:

drill a hole and insert a probe directly into the rock with pipes carrying water in and out;
or drill right through, line the borehole with pipes and pump water through.

In this way, produce steam to drive turbines, for endless quantities of carbon free electricity.

Of course, it will be difficult to do - a complex engineering challenge, but it is at least conceivably feasible. There is a vast source of energy there; large enough to make sense of our response to climate change. We need that energy. Are you saying it is technologically impossible to harness the heat energy of the planet on a large scale? I think otherwise.

A disinterested view of the science seems to recommend we harness the massive heat energy of magma to produce limitless electrical power - to sustain civilisations carbon free, and to capture carbon, produce hydrogen fuel, desalinate and irrigate, and recycle!

Or we can continue to presume sustainability requires sacrifice - apply wholly inadequate technological solutions disguised as a 'diverse energy mix' - carbon tax this, stop that, have less and pay more, guilt trip the consumer, tax businesses into bankruptcy, and still not save the world!

I'm for the former!

Among the best attributes a hypothetical human civilisation could exhibit is respect for science as an understanding of reality. If technology were applied as suggested by a scientific understanding of reality, the world could be a paradise. Assuming only sustainability as a value, a scientific understanding of reality implies a rational series of measures one could take that would allow for a prosperous long term future.

The key is harnessing vast heat energy from the interior of the planet to produce limitless clean electricity, to meet energy demand carbon free, and power hydrogen fuel production, carbon capture and storage, desalination and irrigation, and recycling. These would be globe spanning technologies applied on a monolithic scale powered by a virtually limitless source of energy, drawn upon lavishly to balance human welfare and environmental sustainability.

Hypothetically speaking, totally possible!

Amor fati! — 180 Proof

Exit...pursued by bear!

The organism was incorrect in relation to the reality of its environment, and so was rendered extinct. Moderators - red in tooth and claw!

Science, like intelligence, is just a tool used to gather knowledge. — RoadWarrior9

To maintain science is just a tool is very wrong. It's so much more than that; and that in essence is the whole argument, because there's a functionality to a scientifically valid understanding of the world that we could harness to our benefit - if we could just look beyond our ideological identities and interests.

There's a relation between the validity of the knowledge bases of our actions, causality, and the consequences. It's apparent in everyday life that knowing what's true, and then doing what's right is necessary to the success of our actions.

If we recognised that in principle, a scientific understanding of reality should regulate the application of technology, and applied the right technologies for the right reasons - we could overcome climate change and secure a prosperous sustainable future, by harnessing limitless clean energy from the molten interior of the earth, to produce massive base load electrical power, used to produce hydrogen fuel, capture carbon, desalinate and irrigate and recycle - and so secure a prosperous sustainable future, and live well long term.

Does this mean that humans are not mature enough to use this knowledge? Yes. — RoadWarrior9

That's not the problem. The problem is that our ideological conceptions of ourselves, and each other; our religious, national, political and socio-economic identities and purposes - exclude a scientific conception of reality. I do not expect that to change; however, recognising in principle, that the application of technology should be regulated with regard to a scientific understanding of reality, could justify application of the one key technology we need to have any chance at all of a decent future - that is, limitless clean energy from magma.

So rather than a black box of doom we see that, if science is not just a tool, but is recognised an important understanding of reality, there is hope, and I would push that button instead.

deleted.

We could aim to overcome climate change completely.

Sufficient clean energy is available from the molten interior of the earth; that we could decide and agree to solve this problem, and we could solve it. It must be possible to extract energy from magma heated rock given the sophistication of drilling technologies developed by the fossil fuel industry; and assuming so - there is the potential to meet and exceed global energy demand in short order, from a vast, clean, constant source of base load power.

Producing electrical power converted to hydrogen via electrolysis, and compressed; liquified hydrogen contains 2.5 times the energy of petroleum, and when burnt produces only water vapour. Shipping liquified hydrogen fuel in tanker ships; to be burnt in existing power stations would produce and distribute clean electricity via exiting grids - and so would work with the larger part of existing energy infrastructures.

Given an effectively limitless surplus of energy to power carbon capture and storage, desalination and irrigation, and recycling, there's no scientific or technological reason why we could not meet and overcome the climate challenge, and secure a sustainable balance between human welfare and a viable ecosystem going forward.

It's just a matter of looking at the science and technology first, and the solution is fairly obvious, and could sustain continued economic growth going forward, such that it does not require action in direct opposition to natural human motives and ideological interests to address. It seems improbable precisely because we are limited by our ideological horizons, forced into a bottleneck of ever tighter regulation and taxation without end or hope! But just beyond, there is a viable solution, and beyond that - a hopeful future!

"Ever since Theresa May's government pushed through legislation committing the UK to be net zero by 2050, questions have been asked about the monumental cost likely to be involved, something few politicians are as eager to discuss as the targets themselves.

On Tuesday, though, the independent Office for Budget Responsibility had a go at answering that question. The answer is pretty sobering. The cost of the transition to government, as the OBR points out, depends on which of the costs involved the state choses to take on.

The OBR assumes the government will pick up about a quarter of the cost to the economy - and puts this cost at around £350bn over 30 years.

The implication is that the total cost of the transition will be £1.4trn - three-quarters of which will be borne by households and businesses rather than the government itself, for example, meeting the cost of replacing existing household gas boilers with costly zero carbon alternatives such as solar powered electric heating, ground source heat pumps or electric boilers."

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/the-obr-has-put-a-price-on-the-government-s-net-zero-ambitions-and-it-will-make-you-shiver/ar-AALQbzH?ocid=msedgntp

From my perspective, this is entirely the wrong approach. Looking at the problem in scientific and technological terms first, for half that price, I think it would be possible produce limitless clean energy from magma, convert it to hydrogen, and ship it all around the world to be burnt in traditional power stations, and distributed at petrol stations, to power hydrogen internal combustion engine, and hydrogen fuel cell driven vehicles!

Attacking this as the global problem that is it, and from the supply side, it is scientifically and technologically possible that we could meet and exceed global energy demand, from clean magma energy for half the price the UK alone plans to spend getting to net zero by 2050, and we wouldn't need to stomp on businesses, tax payers and consumers for decades to come to do it, because the cost of applying the technology would be shared many ways.

I cannot but point out the opportunity forgone by, quite understandably, addressing this problem within the bounds, and via the mechanisms available, but the cost is such, and the threat is such that it would be remiss not point out that the energy available is potentially so massive that we could transcend the limits to resources equation forcing us into a bottleneck, if we could look beyond our ideologically described selves but for a moment, and apply this one key technology, it would save us a fortune!

No. It's not. And that's why Popper is wrong. — counterpunch

I must have written that a thousand years ago.

Actually Popper's only hard thesis was that humans and as a result their knowledge is subject to error. So, if you prove him wrong you are proving him right. — Cheshire

Why post that here now - without a link? I've no idea where it came from - or what, precisely I was referring to. What I would say though - appropos of nothing in particular, is that accepting science as truth does not mean that we cannot limit the implications to that which is scientifically necessary to survival.

It would be unwise and undesirable to tear down the Churches, banks and borders - just because they're based in ideological ideas. Rather, recognising science as truth creates an extra-ideological rationale to do what's scientifically necessary to survival - in the first instance, applying the technology to harness limitless clean energy from magma.

Without that energy, there is no path to a viable sustainable future, so the implications are inherently limited - to a systematic scientific understanding of what's necessary to meet and overcome this global scale challenge.

Magma energy allows for carbon capture, hydrogen fuel, desalination and irrigation, recycling - in order to internalise the externalities of capitalism, without internalising them to the economy. So we can meet the climate challenge without imposing poverty by dictat and taxation, as if to eek out our miserable existence forever! We can have more and better - if we can only overcome our ideological limitations on this one issue, and science as truth is the one thing on which we might possibly agree.

I agree about the fear of the left with Corbyn, that it pushed people to vote Tory. But I differ in that I see this as primarily due to a smearing of Corbyn in the press. I don’t think there are the numbers to deliver Tory governments on the fear of socialism alone. — Punshhh

You would say that, but I remember Neil Kinnock twice unable to score past a very tired post Thatcher Tory government. Tony Blair ditched Clause IV; won middle England and three elections in a row for Labour.

Also there is a demographic shift to the left going on. As the voters who remember the winter of discontent are beginning to die off. To be replaced by young voters who have a different outlook on the world and what the priorities of the country are. — Punshhh

I don't think people vote for anyone - I think they vote against; and do so primarily on the basis of their economic well being. If the economy is doing well - all is well. Or as Clinton put it - "it's the economy, stupid!" Tony Blair didn't cause capital flight. Corbyn would have, and people know that. Kinnock would have. People don't want socialism even if they value socialist values. That's why Blair's Third Way project should have been built upon - rather than swinging way out left in order to dupe a load of kids with starry eyed idealism!

I found the list easy enough when I looked. If you want to incorporate it into your post, I'll delete my posts after!

That's a quite badly written Wikipedia page about The Seven World Riddles, and it doesn't list the seven, and nor do you! Has science solved some of them? You mention number seven as "Dubitemus" - but what is it?

I'll save you the trouble:

1. the ultimate nature of matter and force,
2. the origin of motion,
3. the origin of life,
4. the "apparently teleological arrangements of nature," not an "absolutely transcendent riddle,"
5. the origin of simple sensations, "a quite transcendent" question,
6. the origin of intelligent thought and language, which might be known if the origin of sensations could be known, and
7. the question of freewill.

That's better!

I totally get why a laser pointer, directed from Earth, could move a point across the surface of Mars faster than light.

What I don't understand is how the universe can be 14bn years old and 93 light years wide.

If the Big Bang happened at a single point, and all energy and matter originates there - then any way you look at it - energy and matter has travelled over 3 times faster than light to get out that far.

The faster than light expansion of the early universe doesn't account for it as it was only a fraction of a second, from 10 to the power minus 34 seconds, to 10 to the power minus 31 seconds before the light speed limit was established.

It's not something I ever expect to understand. So please, don't try to explain. I raised it as an example, to introduce several arguments - that might have emerged in subsequent discussion.

Instead, Kenosha Kid tried to explain it, at great length - and so I never got to talk about science communication, or how science beholden to government and military funding - rather than science as the pure pursuit of truth, may need to appear to have answers, whether it actually has satisfactory answers or not. I suspect this of Cosmology and Quantum Physics in particular. I don't understand investing so much to tear the mask off God while failing to provide for survival. And this speaks to my more general argument, that we've used science without valuing science as an understanding of reality, and consequently, I think it's difficult to throw a rope around what exactly science does and doesn't know. Which, again, comes around to matter of science communication.

Another related point is more philosophical, and that is how does one approach science philosophically? The nihilist looks into the infinite universe and says - nothing matters. But what if, by rights, science begins at the fingertips? It's more consistent with a scientific epistemology to build from the bottom up, from here - outward, which in turn allows us to focus on what is true, and matters to us. We have a pretty good scientific understanding of the world around us. Good enough to survive - and prosper!

I've read a couple of your posts now, and am still wondering what your age, sex and location are. Not a hint. It leads me to suspect your profile picture is not a photograph of you; and that you are in fact a 400 pound truck driver - suffering from the loneliness of the open road!

I'm alone because I don't trust anyone!

Have you considered the inherent difficulties of studying something so big and so old as the universe? I do not accept cosmology 'is not science' just because I do not understand how the universe can be 14bn years old, and 93bn light years across - if nothing can travel faster than light. I don't understand the galactic rotation problem, or dark matter either. These are puzzles - science may be able to solve given enough time. But maybe, no matter how long we exist, or how far we travel, we'll never be able to gather the evidence we need to solve these problems, precisely because the universe is so big and so old. Maybe cosmology is where science flows into metaphysics - with theories we'll never be in a position to justify or falsify.

...love to fall in. — Inyenzi

Great turn of phrase. Like a swamp!

Read 'What's it like to be a bat?' Thomas Nagel, 1974.

I'm all for clean, green, and hip energy if it can be sustained under capitalism and not through government intervention. — Kasperanza

Meeting the climate challenge without constant and crushing interventions in the market is precisely the point. Magma energy can sustain capitalism - and so maintain the personal and political freedoms capitalism allows for.

I say we burn more fossil fuels, since that's the only thing that powers air conditioning, water irrigation, and generally allows us to create the proper climate. Let the earth change; it's ridiculous to assume that we can stop it. I'm not going to let this new religion of the left convince me that the planet as a whole matters at the expense of my immediate environment. That I must save the planet with petty, trivial actions like recycling and turning off the lights. — Kasperanza

I say we stop using fossil fuels altogether - and drill for magma heat energy, near to magma chambers and subduction zones in the earth's crust. We line the bore holes with pipes - and pump water through to produce superheated steam, to drive turbines - to produce limitless quantities of clean electrical power.

I believe this form of energy is more than sufficient to meet the world's current energy demand, and the surplus could be used to capture carbon, desalinate and irrigate, and recycle - so that it would not be necessary for you to 'pay more and have less' to save the world, or feel guilty every time you turn on a light!

Perhaps you haven’t been following the negative effects of Brexit closely. They are mounting daily, for example and there are hundreds of stories like this affecting most sectors. — Punshhh

I really haven't, no! I am very much "brexited out" after campaigning against it from 2015 through to the 2019 general election. I advised remainers to vote LibDem in 2019, but IMO, Comrade Corbyn's communist manifesto forced disaffected Tories back into the brexit fold. They couldn't risk voting Lib Dem for fear of the loony left gaining control. So, four years issuing warnings about phytosanitary measures, cross channel interconnectors, and a race to the bottom - I know where the tensions lie, but I haven't been watching the news for proof of my arguments. I rather hope I'm wrong. And like I say, over time - things usually tend to settle down into some middling scenario. Unless there's a pandemic or something! Then we'd really be in trouble!

You new? May I give you some hints on how to reply - using the little curly arrow, bottom left, next to where it says 3 hours ago. If you click on that curly arrow - it will notify me of your reply, and you won't have to wait three hours for me to notice!

Also, I'll get a notification if you highlight a passage in the text of the post you're responding to - and hit the 'quote' button that pops up, and it will transfer that passage to the dialogue box - like so:

Small, incremental changes are good. But If you change too many things at once, then people fall apart. Humans are habitual creatures, and our entire lives are built upon systems and expectations. — Kasperanza

Welcome. I look forward to reading your posts - especially if you continue to agree with everything I say!

I agree about the excesses of Corbyn mania, but the current leadership is moderate on EU membership. A pragmatic approach to deal with the adverse effects of Brexit, which are beginning to emerge and will become much worse. I am suggesting an economic crisis for which the solution will only lie in greater economic alignment with the EU. — Punshhh

Because the EU was "in on it" in 2016; accepting the withdrawal notice without a word of complaint on behalf of 16m loyal UK EU citizens crying foul, I cannot see the EU taking any stance that would precipitate the kind of economic crisis that would force the UK to rejoin. You can see Verhofstadt's delight at removing the UK as an obstacle to EU federalism in the video posted above. So long as the UK can establish trade links around the world - and I see no reason why not, I think we'll be okay.

One of the things I love about politics is the paradoxical way in which, left wing economic policies are kinder to people - but ultimately, less economically successful. And right wing policies are harder, but it works. At least for a while. Then, after a while, right wing policies exhaust social capital - and Labour need to step in a reinvest in education, health and so on, until - after a while, the public debt is out of control and we need the Tories firm hand on the tiller again.

Problem is, Labour are in disarray. They still haven't come to terms with the fall of communism in the 1990's. Blair tried to re-root socialist values in a 'third way' compromise with capitalism, but the 2008 financial crisis derailed his program. Then Labour elected Corbyn, who produced a manifesto that went way beyond Clause IV - and they've blown any trust they had with middle England, and cannot win an election without that middle class vote.

That's quite aside from the red wall constituencies that abandoned Labour wholesale to effect brexit. And that again, is aside from the overly broad church Labour have created with these young, idealistic, politically correct Corbynites - that they could lose both middle England - and the young idealist constituencies, and the red wall constituencies in the north. If they don't get their act together real fast, Labour could be wiped out. Final thing - you say Labour care, but you seem to be praying for a disaster to befall us so that you can steal power for Labour. That registers with people.

The Elves are very civil!

I am working on the assumption of a Labour, or coalition Labour government for two, perhaps three terms. Which would result in a genuinely EU friendly policy. When I say rejoin single market, I’m thinking of the Norway model. — Punshhh

What makes you think Labour are EU friendly? Half the party are anti-capitalists - who view the EU as a neo liberal institution. Have you not wondered why Jeremy Corbyn was elected Labour leader, on the basis of a populist social media campaign, and £2 entryism - running in parallel to the right wing populism of the Leave campaign? And you think they'd sign up to full membership fees, to be bound by all EU laws, but have no representation in the EU Parliament, Council or Commission? I mean, never say never, but not in a million years! It was Corbyn's communist manifesto in the 2019 general election that scared the shit out of Tory Remainers, and forced them to vote for Boris's brexit!

Some people might say that as a general rule, humans have an aversion to change. — HardWorker

How very prudent! It's a physical fact that any change to a complex system is more likely to be detrimental than beneficial, which is the basic reason change should be systematic and incremental. Otherwise, people suffer!

Yes, I agree. Fortunately I have a get out clause, I will qualify for Scottish citizenship. The U.K. EU relations will settle down and I expect we will rejoin the single market after a decade, or possibly sooner. — Punshhh

I'm not sure I know what you mean. Are you saying we'll rejoin the EU? Or gain free access to the single market? Either way, I don't think so. Listen to the speech of Guy Verhofstadt from the day after the referendum.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJF0V2Z_soU

They were delighted to see us go, because we have a monarchy and a sovereign Parliament that made EU federalism politically difficult, if not impossible. Rejoining the EU would be entirely on their terms - and that would be impossible. The EU will now treat the UK as a third country; and their protectionist policies will work against us.

That was my line!

Remember when Jeremy Hunt said "Britons will be working like Chinese sweatshop labourers"? — karl stone

And that was before Covid! You've gotta laugh; if you don't you'll cry! What I've noticed is - that over the longer term, these things tend to pan out more moderately than the worst case scenario might suggest. EU businesses will want access to the UK market; and so reciprocally, will have to allow British business access to EU markets. It'll all settle down into some not quite satisfactory compromise, and we'll muddle through - at least, until the sky bursts into flames!

Sounds great! — karl stone

I don't know. Globally, the US and China together are a lot bigger than the EU, and they're not at all keen on the kind of tight regulation the EU produces by the metric tonne. I mean - we'll probably kill the planet in the process, but at least our tomb will be decorated with gold!

oops!

Hate to say I told you so! — karl stone

You didn't need to tell me. You're right, but I can't do this. It's done now, we may as well just get on with it. What you need to realise is - two things; first - that the EU accepted the withdrawal notice without a word of complaint on behalf of sixteen million of their loyal citizens. And secondly, the public voted for brexit at the 2019 general election. It is a fait accompli - forget it. Move on!

The referendum still chaps my hide - because it was crooked AF. People have no idea. But what good does it do to dwell? It's done - and now we can but make the best of it. I was an ardent Remainer - and protested right through to the 2019 general election, where the public had the option of voting LibDem, and revoking Article 50. The public didn't vote for that - they voted for a Brexiteer, and that's when I accepted the inevitable - but a bitter distaste for David Cameron still lingers!

Thought you'd get a kick out of this from six years ago...

I still hope Trump wins the nomination because he will almost definitely lose the election, and also because he is honestly expressing the views of a large proportion of Republican voters. So, it will be a straightforward rejection of those rather than have them sneak through in the more subtle guise of some empty suit like Marco Rubio. — Baden

Correct. — Apollodorus

I don't want to talk about it! It winds me up!
Anything else, Aplollodorus - elsewhere!

Not as much as truth!

I'm here to please. — Olivier5

I'm leaving! Don't try and stop me!

Please feel free to invent whatever you want to about me. — Olivier5

It's been a joy speaking with you!