There are thousands of rich people with private jets and multiple vacation homes. If you want to encourage them to live more sustainable lives, there is a very direct way to do it: use incentives that they care about, that is: money. AKA Carbon tax.
Seems there are plenty of methods, no more difficult than shorting pretty much anything else.
That got 5 insightful? Slashdot, your standards are dropping
We need to see this in Celestia!
Does the internet accept the challenge?
(Ok Devil's advocate here, just for fun.)
Who cares?
Let's look at each of your best attempts at a scary consequence.
"Stores can use information about your Doritos purchases to rearrange their wares" - sounds good to me, helping to make sure the shelf hasn't run out of what I want. Why be so protective of information which is expressed so publicly anyway whenever you shop?
"Google could push coupons via its new Google Offers service" - coupons are an annoying way to create artificial loyalty, but I don't think it started with Google Wallet. What might be new here is how tailored the coupons are to your preferences, but I don't see how that's a problem either.
"your health insurance company might be interested in your sodium intake" - of course their interested. Now consider the two options: (a) they don't get information about your individual health, or (b) they do get information. In (a), the insurance premium has to be the same for everyone, regardless of health. If you happen to unhealthy, you're better off, paying the average instead of above average. BUT if you're healthy you're worse off, effectively subsidizing other people's poor lifestyle. This is unfair on those who are healthy, and bad for the group since it rewards bad health as an individual strategy.
Come on man, let go and be part of the google hive mind. One of us, one of us.
(Not sure whether I was really convincing there
The article is a "Straw Man" argument, that is to say based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.
To my knowledge, no one makes such a statement as "Quantum Theory Explains Consciousness". There are some sceculative attempts to explain consciousness, but none that I know of use Quantum Theory as the be-all and end-all.
What people might be saying is, there are some interesting relationships between Quantum Theory and Consiousness, which merit further exploration. This is hard to dispute, given the seemingly important role of the conscious observer in the act of measurement.
Thus, "Quantum Theory relates to consciousness" has been mistaken for "Quantum Theory explains consiousness". These are two very different ideas, as "relates", and "explains" are two different kinds of relationships. In fact, "explains" is a special case of "relates to", is the meta-relationship, but I digress.
This sounds more like someone wants to work in the field of philosphy of consciousness, but is grizzling about being expected to know the difficult field of Quantum Theory.
What would make you happy? That thinking about Quantum Theory be banned in all discussions about consciousness?
In the middle, there is a clear example of tautology, with the phrase "no apparent causal link", expressed as though it is an observation to use as input. "Consciousness is not explained" because "there is no apparent link", both expressing essentially the same idea, and the latter is just assumed to be true.
Your argument degenerates into terms like "very basic". When you just keep saying how obvious it is, usually it's the result of the argument lacking any real content.
Now I don't expect this will serve any purpose, but I will take this criticism and make it constructive. It would advance the cause if Science better for you to say what you think consiousness *might* be explained by, rather than what you think it "probably isn't" caused by.
Or if you really want to help rule it out as a cause (which *would*, I admit, have some benefit), then MAKE A MORE SOLID CASE.
* Someone that have not read a book in their entire life.
Someone that like to criticize other despite have not much good grammar?
527
Frankly, the mention of the term "carbon footprint" puts this squarely in the "hype" category.
Why did that get modded 5 insightful? Carbon Footprint is a valid and useful term.
The only reason I can see why some might like the above comment is if they are so conservative on climate change, they reject even the terms used in discussing it.
It would almost qualify as an example of the logical fallacy known as the "Appeal to Ridicule" but it wasn't quite intelligent enough.
"The four building blocks of the universe are fire, water, gravel and vinyl." -- Dave Barry
