To do so just side-steps evolution taking the greatest trait ever to develop on this planet (intellect) and granting all of it's benefits with none of it's disadvantages (few as they may be) to people lacking it. In turn we've not only halted, but actually reversed the effects of evolution resulting in greater intellect.
Indeed!
Perhaps it's the technologists you hang out with. Those I know don't feel that way. I also think you're conflating charlatan's with everyday people.
Perhaps it's the technologists you hang out with?
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Those who wield technology are, therefore, akin to magicians. People are amazed by magicians but they also don't trust what they don't understand.
Most people don't understand the commitment required to be a good technologist, they just want you to fix their computer during the dinner they invited you to. How may times have you heard the "I'm not very good with computers" line? Even more how many time have you met someone with "the next great idea to make millions" and all they need is some dumb monkey coder to do the actual *work* for them? The general expectation is that you'll do it for them but just watch their face if you ask them to tile your bathroom or do a similar amount of *work*.
I think Thiel is right. I'm uncertain if people actually deserve a gift like information technology and the internet which is powerful enough to enslave or free humanity. Frankly people are so vapid and apathetic they are simply driving us to a technology driven dystopia from the sheer weight of idiocracy. The worst thing about it is that myself and every technologist I know is being dragged along, kicking and screaming, with them - fully aware of the consequences.
I fear people will hate you for this comment. Are you technology?
No, he's Tchnology.
I'm sorry you feel that way however what I wrote wasn't about you nor was it an attack on you. It was about what you said.
Rationality left the room in this discussion long ago when the oil and coal companies decided to get involved with using PR to counter the irrefutable science being peer reviewed and published. PR companies don't need actual science to influence public opinion, they just need to confuse the issue. Unintentionally, you helped them.
Whilst what you were saying was pretty clear to me, it is obviously not clear to you that what you say will be twisted in much more sinister ways than you claim I have. If you ask yourself how likely it is that this is a consequence of AGW could you indeed state that it's unlikely? Intentionally or not you politicized your own argument. No one is going to do the science on the walrus' coming ashore en-mass because no-one cares about them, not even you. That's the reality.
You've largely backed up my point about the political elements in these topics. You are not a positive influence on rational discussions. You promote factionalism, tribalism, political gainsaying, and other primate pissing contests into what should be a rational scientific discussion.
I never claimed anything I said was science, nor did I launch into an ad hominem attack as you have demonstrated. You claim this "should be a rational scientific discussion" but what you don't realize is we are no longer talking rationally about this and many other things. This is a "gloves off, take no prisoners" battle for survival on one side and a "You won't be taking me alive" fight for a perceived way of life ending on another.
If you want rationality, you should be prepared to demonstrate it as I have, because billions of people are going to die in the changes and resources wars in the coming years. That is the discussion we are having. If you are not equipped to have the discussion you shouldn't complain to me because of it or blame me because you take it personally.
This talk of double standards has another point. Talk of AGW and if it is or isn't man made
AGW stands for anthropogenic global warming. Anthropogenic means man-made.
pedantic:
adjective
2. overly concerned with minute details or formalisms, especially in teaching.
May be now some of those candidates would know what it means to be on the receiving end of racism and look with some sympathy and understanding when black, brown, yellow Americans complain about it.
Come on, The caste system is alive and well in India
They should be careful with that ploy. The people will tolerate what they can and then they'll kill the ruling class.
Exactly! That is what history has shown in the past.
And we can tax the hell out of them if necessary to balance the books. Consider it a transformer fixing up the impedance mismatch between the U.S. and Indian economy.
I don't think that's going to happen because YOU are the problem globalization is supposed to fix. Once you are subdued, begging, starving and can't afford to live in the country of your birth you won't worry about your pay and conditions, you'll just be happy to have some form of employment (not _personally_ you btw). Globalization exports labor, but not pay and conditions.
Of course this is the reason unions existed in the first place, to protect workers and lobby politicians for the very solution you point to here.
Things are only evidence of a given theory or they are only valid if they confirm current theory.
This talk of double standards has another point. Talk of AGW and if it is or isn't man made, if it is or isn't happening centers around a key distraction because it is the main externality of modern man. Cast doubt on carbon as an externality then you cast doubt on every other of the plethora of externalities that we just expect nature to deal with.
So put aside AGW for a while and ponder if all the industrial products and processes we have actually produce pollution as an externality and, for how long has it been creating an impact?
How much garbage does it take for a gyre to form in both our largest oceans kilometres deep, just how much trees can we cut down - all of them? How many factory ships and by-catch does it take to empty the ocean ecosystems? All of these and thousands of other human externalities exist and every single one of them has an impact. So yeah, it may not be AGW related, however it is more than likely related to some form of human externality. My point is, does it matter which human externality it belongs to if we are so mired down with inaction and analysis-paralysis to do anything about them.
Pick *any* large scale human industrial activity and ask yourself what the impact is? You don't need science to tell you that if you burst a cyanide dam (used for gold mining) and it flows into a river - everything in its path is going to die. That if you choke rivers with fertilizers and on and on and on.
Does it matter which human externality is to blame anymore?
Here someone is going to attack me for pushing the denialist/skeptic position... because god forbid anyone question the orthodoxy
But you are pushing it and no one is attacking you because the denialist/skeptic position is politics, not science. It's forbidding anyone questioning the orthodoxy of the coal/oil industry by positioning them in an argument to render the actual science of AGW a moot point. It's genius really, a skeptic absolves them selves of any need to present proof of their argument and can deny an proof presented - no proof is possible.
And what's the point of denialist/skeptic being right? Right about what? What alternate thesis is being presented to the thousands of articles of science presented?
The oil/coal industry is an entity that has control over the media outlets that shape our opinions and has trillions of dollars for lobbying, you think you are questioning the orthodoxy however in reality, you are just towing the line. Prove to me you aren't towing the line, show me the science to back up an alternate claim.
Either do the science or disclaim your position with a statement that this is just your assumption/guess. I'm fine with people guessing. Guess all day. Don't tell me your guesses are science though.
The only claim made is that this is what was noticed in the NOAA survey of animal migration. This is a fact that contributes to science which denialist/skeptics won't accept anyway. What is your alternate claim, show me your evidence that this isn't caused by AGW, where is your evidence to support your alternate claim?
The science of AGW challenges oil and coal industry hegemony and the science was reported right here on
The only fact denialist/skeptics need to assess is if it's in the coal and oil industry's interest to cast enough doubt in everyone's minds to promote inaction, which is so much cheaper than actually doing something.
If AGW is a complete figment of our imagination, then we are in a lot of trouble because if the denialist/skeptics are right then we cannot do a thing to stop the inevitable collapse of the ecosystem, our food production systems and the inevitable billions of deaths that will follow.
However, the science I've examined rationally demonstrates AGW is a human externality caused by the irresponsible use of natural resources and dogmatic skepticism is just a way of dodging responsibility for mending our ways. We don't want to do because we are just so comfortable. Anything that makes us uncomfortable must be bad so it's easier to stick with apathy because inaction is just what the oil and coal companies want so they don't have to change.
Your position of political over-analysing is like asking "Are we sure this truck heading toward us", getting hit by it and then asking the doctor to say you "died from internal injuries" instead of "got hit by a truck" because you have a problem with double standards.
There is no science in your problem, only politics.
Never test for an error condition you don't know how to handle. -- Steinbach
