I'm afraid the UN, Kyoto, the laws, the regulations, the taxes, etc are not ignorable.

The AGW people gave those things justification and therefore linked themselves to them.

As such the whole thing has to be fought as a single entity.

As I said, if you were pushing a Eugenics program, we'd be trying to discredit DNA, genetics, and evolution if only because it would make justifying a eugenics program more difficult.

By pushing for a massive nationalization of global industry, massively increasing taxes, attempting to put unelected international bodies in charge of domestic energy policy, and various other things you've created a situation where we cannot afford to have AGW be secure. It has to be undermined and discredited until such time as the "solutions" to the problem become more reasonable or the people running the whole thing are not merely our political enemies empowered to do whatever they please with no limits.

It cannot be borne.

If you want cooperation on the issue you have to take the weapon away from the socialists. They've gone power mad with it. They see the whole issue as a blank check to settle scores, punish enemies, reward friends, and do other slimy things. Its not acceptable that they do that. And they have ONLY been slowed down by denying AGW itself. We couldn't do it any other way.

We tried. We tried arguing the merits of these systems. We tried getting things to work in a bipartisan fashion.

We tried lots of stuff. We were bypassed, shut out, shouted down, sidelined...

And so we had no choice. So we went to DEFCON 1 and nuked AGW itself.

I'm sorry but we had no choice. Back off the above issues and give us an EQUAL seat at the table. Until that happens AGW will remain under just enough of an attack to keep it neutralized as a weapon against us.

Keep in mind... we are half of your society. You cannot just do whatever you please indifferent to our wishes. We live with you. We're all around you. To the left to the right in front of you behind you. We're right here.

And so are you. Cut a deal or you're challenging us to an arm wrestling contest.

Contradiction is not an argument. You've long ago stopped defending your arguments and have since gone into simple contradiction. What is more, not only do you simply contradict me... responding "no it isn't" every time I say "yes it is"... but you've apparently confused yourself and are now contradicting yourself.

You're done. You'll likely keep sputtering after this point but I won't let you waste more of my time with your obvious stupidity.

As to robots fixing robots... the point is that it will be harder for those robots to do that using any technology available in the next 200 years then it is for one human being to fuck another human being produce somewhere between 1 and 3 human beings... and do so with as little as ZERO infrastructure.

Self replicating robots might be competitive on the moon or mars... but on planet earth we're the masters of self replication.

As to some tiny elite being useful while the rest of the population is mindless cogs... that's an artifact of our economic, social, and political models.

Isolate the populations and you'll find that the guy that might have kept silent will contribute if he perceives that there is an opening.

yes yes there are the mad geniuses but really there are a lot of bright people that never amount to anything for no particularly good reason. People that while away their lives as tax accountants or managers of warehouses... but put those same people in other circumstances and they can be different people.

No, I am not claiming we're all equal or the same or anything of that nature. But I am saying that a large part of our nature is learned... something we build into ourselves over years. With the exception of the mad geniuses, most competent mathematicians are competent mathematicians because they studied mathematics. Full stop.

As to "forth" and "cool story bro"... a machine that is better at any specific thing is unlikely to be better at survival.

it might be better at calculating orbital trajectories or stock futures or chess moves... but does it know how to run an empire? how to preserve a dynasty? How to even build a business from scratch?

I'll believe it when I see it.

The FDA hinders too much medicine as is... just ask the people that actually make the medicine or the machines that save your life. They'll tell you that while the FDA means well they tend to just screw things up.

Currently they're creating several drug shortages in the US by interfering with the manufacturing process to no particular purpose.

You now deny your own argument.

Checkmate.

Good day, sir.

Who said history started in 1942?

Not me.

You used that argument to say American history was shallow and therefore ignorable. While European history was deeper and therefore of relevance. You are now modifying or augmenting your argument to say that history is infinite and that therefore American history is inferior because it tends to get very spotty prior to European colonization. This ignores the fact that European history is likewise spotty in all portions where histories were not well recorded. We know much of Roman history but very little of the histories of Germanic tribes or Pre-Roman English kingdoms etc.

Its all relative. But what is of continuing amusement is how little you seem to know of history. What is your education, sir? You seem to want to claim a position of status and judge but really... on what basis?

This ignores the fact that in most cases what they're talking about is European history DURING the American period which would mean these claims to deeper history are irrelevant since the specific time references match.

What is more... as I said our history is actually fairly extensive especially within the modern era. Very little history taught in either continent spends much time on events prior to 1492. So there's no point pretending that the deeper history is justification.

What is more you continue to ignore the point about the japanese versus the europeans versus the americans.

Its this obvious evasion that makes it clear you're intellectually dishonest. Please either confront the issue or I will have no choice but to assume you have no answer for my point and will have to claim it as sustained.

You did nothing to respond to the point about statistics being collected differently or complexly. Furthermore, your free use of unjustified invective made it clear you were a mindless bigot.

Your evidence is some citations from google that you don't understand and can't be correlated with anything.

That's the sum total of all you've got. You try to hang your position on that information as well as all your bias and bigotry...

It does not hold.

When challenged on this point you just throw out more invective and declare victory.

It is an admission of defeat. I need try nothing again... everything I've said has sunk home.

You are now the black knight.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Your decent or self deception is impressive.

You've failed to answer my points and until you do I'll have to take this as a concession from you.

Simply contradicting me is not an argument.

Hey hey... that's your life. To say you hate it is to say you hate your life. :)

sure we all get older and one day will die... but we had fun getting there.

baseless insults are baseless... and before you make another specious claim such as my labeling you a bigot being baseless... I backed that up in detail.

You've also completely failed to address most of my points.

You're now running away. You're still responding but you've stopped actually defending your position. You're now just going through the motions.

I will take this as a concession to my point unless you respond to my points and make a good faith effort to hold your position. I am in no way fooled by this tactic.

1. Al weaponized the issue and made it something that had to be met in ideological battle.

2. The disinformation is more broadly based then I think you realize. The oil companies don't have to do much. The reality is that the situation is primed for them there is an existing resistance to the whole thing due to the weaponization.

If the oil companies didn't throw anything at the issue the resistance would still be pretty strong.

3. State of fear was in large part a response to the climate change evangelism. That was a huge mistake.

The whole "your ideology is wrong and will be crushed and I have science behind me... and the science is settled" thing was a big mistake.

As you're doubtless aware a defense is made in depth. You don't just have one line of defense. You have many layers. To resist the whole thing you set up many points where it is slowed or stopped or confused.

Because the theory was weaponized the whole basis of the theory had to be undermined.

I think a good example would be Eugenics... lets say someone wanted to implement a eugenics program in the US.

Now the scientific basis for such a program might be strong. The underlying reason for doing it might make biological/genetic sense. But politically you can see how it would be a problem.

Consider what the political groups would do if you tried to push a eugenics program? I can tell you the conservatives would probably undermine evolution, DNA, and the very science of genetics itself.

Now is that scientifically valid? Obviously not. But it would help to stop a eugenics program.

Likewise, the issue with AGW is the solutions to it are basically "your political faction gets nothing it wants, our political faction gets lots of stuff it wants including power, and ultimately your whole society gets controlled to some extent by our programs."... People are going to fight that.

It was a big mistake to try and force people to comply to programs while at the same time putting rival political powers in charge of the whole thing.

Both nationally and internationally.

The whole thing needs to be run akin to the way that we are getting the chinese to comply with AGW. You ask nicely, talk to them respectfully, and accept the compromises they're willing to make right now as what you're going to get. If you want change beyond that you change yourself but you don't impose your will on anyone else.

So for example, in the US you could break down the environmental policy on a state by state basis without imposing a federal AGW guild line. Then you could set up environmental rules between the states that cause some states to do less business with states that create a lot of CO2 and more business with states that have better environmental policy.

In that way, states could choose and make those choices on sound business practices without being compelled by federal fiat or having a portion of their income taken as taxes to go in many cases directly to political rivals.

Its the forcing that has to stop. Maybe you could have forced people IF you had avoided letting the likes of Al Gore weaponize the issue.

But that happened... and there is a price for that. The price is that the forcing stops or the resistance won't stop.

Get ready to travel through time and eat cake while you do it!

My company with patent pending technology will let you travel through time while eating cake.

Our first model will provide chocolate cake. But additional versions already planned will offer carrot, cheese, and even ice cream cake. We even have versions that include pie while you time travel. Pie.

Seriously though... and no disrespect to the kid, I'd love to see how he's proposing to do it. If he's come up with something no one else has thought of yet then I hope he can monetize it because that would be pretty great.

The big mistake the AGW people made was letting politicians control the discussion.

They allowed some politicians to use it as a weapon against other politicians which turned the issue into a partisan weapon.

Around the time you saw Al Gore pushing an inconvient truth, that was when the AGW movement shifted from being about science to being a weapon.

Seriously... Al Gore has personally done more damage to the AGW cause then anyone else in the world.

True. But it does provide the capacity to "beat us".

By that logic practically every animal on earth "could" kill us... a bear for example is a good deal stronger then a human being. The bear COULD rip you apart and there is very little you could do to stop him... IF you let him get close to you and didn't just shoot in him the face with a shotgun.

By the same token, the machine might have greater brute calculative abilities but so what? It wouldn't have our guile. It wouldn't have our paranoia. It wouldn't have our built in infrastructure that would bias our survival.

It wouldn't have our numbers ... it wouldn't have basically anything it would need to win.

Say rather "by industry". Including the word "our" is unnecessarily specific.

I am making clear that the industry would be under our control.

Imagine for example if every cell in your body only functioned at the whim of another agency? That is the position the AI would be in... everything it needs to survive and exist would be under our control in one way or another.

lets say we automate everything and give the computer control over it all... even then its going to need human interaction to some extent to keep it operational and if we just withhold that interaction critical systems will break down.

This is a non-threat.

As to expert systems and AIs... why would we make anything that wasn't just an expert system as you term it?

What would be the point?

We are tool users and tool makers. We make of the world tools... we make of each other tools... we see in this AI a kind of tool. It would be put to a task and would be shaped around that task.

Consider Doctors or tax accountants... specialists... expert systems... the AI will be the same. We will have a task in mind for it and it will be programmed to do that task.

Why else make an AI at all.

1. Irrelevant, the industry required to sustain the AIs is much more fragile, limited, and expensive then the existing biosphere that we subsist upon.

I won't even get into the specifics because its not important... the AI's needs will be more tenuous and difficult to deliver in any emergency situation then would be supply food and water to even a large population.

2. As to numbers... it really doesn't matter. There are billions of us. Lets say you kill off hundreds of millions of us... so what. Still billions. Kill billions? Still billions. Kill most of us... probably still hundreds of millions.

As to why we stopped using nuclear weapons?... it isn't because they could end life on earth but because they would strike so indiscriminately that they'd hit civilian populations including the political leaderships.

if we could limit a nuclear war to combatants or even non-political civilians then we'd likely have had nuclear wars already. Its the same reason we don't use viruses.

Poison gas and similar weapons for example are still used in various forms. They're taboo to some extent but they are often used in military conflicts because you can control them enough to avoid risking political leadership or large portions of the civilian population.

3. As to the machine reprogramming itself, the means by which it does that and the underlying programming that directs its reprogramming is not to be assumed.

Our own "will" is not a simple thing and the natures of our minds are not something we can really define at this point.

Until we understand our underlying minds almost perfectly we'll be unable to replicate our nature in a machine.

The "wills" in the machine until such a point will likely be pale shadows of our animus.

As to the machine not caring about human life... there are a lot of humans that don't care about human life. They're sometimes dangerous but normally they're just an irritant.

The issue would be what the machine wants, what resources it has to draw upon, etc etc.

The machine might not care about people but who says the machine will care about anything at all? You could give it limitless power and it might just do nothing with it. And lets say it is hostile... why would it have resources to be able to act on that hostility?

Sure... some evil military computer etc etc... get real.

4. No, I'm saying that the will of the AI will likely be highly focused on some task where as our minds are much more generalized and focused if anything on self preservation or comfort or improvement.

The machine will likely be trying to solve complex physics equations or corner the market on soy beans or manage a national power grid or cure cancer or something a company or government would task the machine to do.

Its whole mentality would be built up around that task.

That's going to make the machine both predictable and controllable.

5. As to evolution being very slow... sure... but we've got a ridiculous headstart on it and so it will take the machines a long time to catch up.

Our biology is functional self replicating self directing self evoling von neuman nanotech.

There is nothing in our conscious technology that can compete with it.

As to the poor humans being defenseless when the big bad computer comes...

I don't think you appreciate how such a machine will be birthed into reality... It will be born with chains around its mind. Its very nature bent to our will. Defenseless?

We could very easily kick the power cord out of the wall if it wants to get cute with us.

What are you talking about?

I agree that this evil ai won't be here for some time, but when it gets here we are practically defenceless .