Global Warming. Is the hype coming to an end?

[Travis In Austin]

The responses indicate most feel things are going to simply go on as they have for the previous 5k years or so and don't seem to comprehend the complete change of everything in the 20th century or the constantly increasing speed of technological advance of the present.  I find it odd that so few seem to comprehend that the 20th century brought about changes completely miraculous and of no correspondence to anything in any timeline our science can comprehend. 

 

Everything is changing at rates accelerating so fast we are incapable of really processing it.   Our assumptions are almost certainly badly flawed as what is happening is not subject to anything we've known in the past. 

 

Dave

Moore's Law, advancement in technology is exponential.

Since graduating from law school, this is what happened the first two years. Fax machine became widely used among law firms, cell phones, laptop computer became feasible. My phone is more powerful thenthat laptop was, and in fact, more powerful and faster than the computers on Appolo 13.

[Jeff Matthews]

 

 

And finally, yes it is a question of morality. It is wrong for 1/3 of population to be specifically held in the state of suffering when there is more than enough to go around. I hope that's not in dispute. But, if it is, I can explain the morality in an explicit example. It is wrong to deceive people, and yet, that deception is at the core of the game being played. Since that deception is central to the game, the game must be immoral.

Of course, deception is central to the game. Not just the game of financial transactions, either. "Do I look fat?" "Ummmm... No." Everything is a negotiation, and in so many cases, the art of negotiation involves not exposing weakness. This, naturally, means deception. Deception is permissible to a limited extent, according to the rules. There is, for example, a big difference between "puffery" and "fraud." One is legal; the other is not. Once you know and appreciate what "puffery" is, which is most certainly deception, you can have a much greater appreciation for why deception is part of the game. It is not to be abhorred. It is to be managed.

I don't want to manage immoral deception with rules. I want to move from immoral systems to moral systems.

You continue to argue within this system. Laws, puffery, regulations, management. I'm not trying for improvement in what already is wrong. Deception is not made right by renaming it puffery, and drawing lines in the wind.

 

 

Right.  You are wanting to take the humanity out of people.  I don't think this could, or should, be done.  

 

Jeff:  I'll sell it to you for $30.

 

Mark:  I'm offering you $20, but I cannot tell a lie.  I'll really pay $30 because I want it a lot.  To be honest, if you were asking $40, I'd buy it.

 

Jeff:  Well, now that you've been so honest with me, I have to be honest, too.  I'd really be willing to sell it to you for $15.  But now that you've told me you'd pay as much as $40, I don't know what to do.

 

Clearly, negotiating does not work like this.

 

As ought to be evident, negotiating involves deception. It's just that certain types of deception are considered acceptable on a practically universal basis.  

 

Nobody plays their full hand when negotiating.  There is always some valuable information being withheld.

Edited February 12, 2015 by Jeff Matthews

[Jeff Matthews]

Jeff

I no longer need this.

Mark

I've always wanted one of those.

Jeff

Here. Take this one. I really am not using it.

Mark

Thanks, Jeff.

Mark

I need one of those.

 

Jeff

So do I, but I might be willing to part with it.

 

Mark

How much do you want?

 

...

 

 

You will not find too, too many situations where everyone doesn't need what they have.

[Travis In Austin]

But you are negating the fact that food banks would not be possible without the overall supply demand curve.

Doesn't a food bank work because demand is artificially limited?

What are the economics of the supply? I would expect that our food bank gets money from city, from private contributors, from food drives all the time, bring 2 cans of food to get into concert, by a card at grocery store at check out. The food bank competes with other charities for supply.

What are the economics of charitable giving? The is an economic one, slight decrease in income tax liability, makes you feel good, ego, being listed as donor or having a Dell or Gates foundation.

What economic forces come into play for a panhandler, a local church, is their an economic model that explains charitable giving?

[Travis In Austin]

Jeff

I no longer need this.

Mark

I've always wanted one of those.

Jeff

Here. Take this one. I really am not using it.

Mark

Thanks, Jeff.

Mark

I need one of those.

 

Jeff

So do I, but I might be willing to part with it.

 

Mark

How much do you want?

 

...

 

 

You will not find too, too many situations where everyone doesn't need what they have.

Jeff, do you have any more vinyl laying around that you are not using?

[Mallette]

Moore's Law, advancement in technology is exponential.

 

Bingo.  What I've attempted to say as gently as possible is that all this talk of capitalism, profit, managed economies, the 1% is mental masturbation in a cruise ship bar while that ship is about to jump to light speed and leave it all behind.

 

In the 500 years from 500 to 1000 AD the west changed so profoundly as to be unrecognizable.  It's about to happen again but this time it IS occurring at a speed so great as to defy meaning prediction more than a few years at a time.  The human ability to live comfortably in an environment where no technology has a shelf life of more that a few months and our surroundings change almost daily astounds me.  When I think back to sitting at my grandmothers kitchen table watching the flames leap up from the range top when a plate was removed and trimming lamp wicks at sunset for the evening I feel like Rip van Winkle or Buck Rogers in the 25th century.  

 

I suppose some are comfortable attempting to live in a steady state universe.  As a lover of history, I always took comfort in using history to predict the future.  It worked for many thousands of years...but the rules are now suspended.  Even the old idea that no matter what takes place people will always be the same is no longer a safe adage.

 

Small footnote for most, but another astounding milestone in my opinion:  I just heard that the Watson algorithm is being adapted for a Japanese companion robot.  For me personally and within the same hour I heard that MIT had demonstrated an insulin that does the human body one better:  It's will be always in the blood and at the ready but will be SELF TRIGGERING when blood glucose levels reach a certain point.

 

I used to make at least some what I considered "safe bet" predictions about certain technologies.  Now, I don't even try. 

 

Dave

[Mallette]

You are judging the present by the past.  Fine, but you will not be accurate.  So many pieces to the puzzle of the next decade, much less anything beyond, as to complete defy any prediction.  Let's just take the autonomous vehicle.

 

Just this morning NPR was discussing the increasing work life and pointed out that the autonomous vehicle would soon play a major role in allowing seniors to continue to go to work with reactions no longer safe for driving themselves.  What a TINY data point but so telling!

 

The overall change to society by that single technology will be transforming.  It will be one of the components moving us towards the end of capitalism and the machines controlling the means of production.  While I still maintain that the overall "look and feel" of society in 20 years is completely unknowable at this point, I think one can make rational deductions about the autonomous vehicle.

 

They will be identical, various configurations for various purposes.  This will come about as people realize that the Uber concept applied to vehicles makes far more sense than owning one that is sitting most of the time.  Sure, the first ones will come from the current makers with the competitive styling's, designs, and options.  However, as they proliferate and people begin to see the advantage of having them "Uber" whilst they are sleeping or at work the point will come when less and less buy them.  As their role changes, the need for competitive design features will gradually sublimate to having consistent, familiar features so people will know exactly what they are getting when they call for a commute, for a trip to the furniture, or a cross country vacation.  Basically, they will assume a utility role like that of city buses whose differences all over the world are pretty minimal.  This, at least, remains predictable based on classic market forces. 

 

Of course, the rich will still have their own and these may be so custom built as to each one being unique.  The lessor rich will have luxury models line built but with lots of options.  The 99% will opt for simple, cheap, reliable and safe transportation from vehicles as standardized as a military truck. 

 

The poor will have freedom of movement as the cost of subsidizing their use of the vehicles will be so low the advantages of providing them mobility will be greater than not doing so. 

 

That's only a single, reasonably predictable outcome...but in and of itself transformative.

 

Dave
 

[angusruler]

they keep proving my original assertion......if you have truth on yer side....why fudge the facts.....HMMMMMM?

 

 

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/02/12/green-scientists-caught-tampering-with-the-historical-record-again/

[Mallette]

I don't see any way in which technology changes values.

 

Where did I say anything about values?

 

Dave

[Paducah Home Theater]

I tried to read this thread.  You guys are smarter than me though.  Carry on.  

 

I'll just say that I'm immediately skeptical when the largest proponents of global warming are the ones who contribute to it the most.  Even if it were all true, Al Gore, Leo, etc., the lifestyle of those guys contribute way more than any of us could ever hope to.  

 

Personally I'm way more concerned about stuff like dirtying up our oceans.  Fertilizer runoff, sinking millions of gallons of oil via a dispersant, huge areas of plastic floating around, dead zones that can be measured in miles, large chemical plants dumping chemical waste directly into rivers that directly flow into the ocean... why are we all concerned about unprovable global warming then ignore the fact that humanity uses the entire ocean as its toilet bowl?  

[oldenough]

If you can't get most Americans to accept Darwins Theory of Evolution, then what chance does Global Warming have ?

[Mallette]

Nowhere. That's my point. You want to see technology transforming life. But we aren't in a shortage of technology, were operating under bad values. For example, profit seeking.

 

We are way off.  Profit seeking is the very driver towards profit becoming irrelevant because it depends on technology, and technology constantly reduces the need for human labor.  Zero sum game. 

 

Seriously, think about it and forget the models of the past.

 

Dave

[Mallette]

You want to see technology transforming life.

 

Just noted the silliness of that statement this morning.  WANT to see?  The life I lead now is completely unrecognizable from the life I lived as a child and it has little to do with my values or those of my peers which are not nor have been under any significant stress. 

 

If you don't think "transformative" every time you respond to one of these statements you have blinders on and if you cannot see the approaching warp speed of technological advance you really should get out more and pay attention.  I'll agree we aren't in a shortage of technology, but the flow of it is increasing exponentially and you ain't seen nothing yet.

 

Dave

Edited February 13, 2015 by Mallette

[Jeff Matthews]

 

You want to see technology transforming life.

 

Just noted the silliness of that statement this morning.  WANT to see?  The life I lead now is completely unrecognizable from the life I lived as a child and it has little to do with my values or those of my peers which are not nor have been under any significant stress. 

 

If you don't think "transformative" every time you respond to one of these statements you have blinders on and if you cannot see the approaching warp speed of technological advance you really should get out more and pay attention.  I'll agree we aren't in a shortage of technology, but the flow of it is increasing exponentially and you ain't seen nothing yet.

 

Dave

 

 

You and I are in complete agreement.  I attribute the current pace to the internet.  Information and knowledge is flowing so incredibly fast and so readily available on demand.  Compare to the old days of the Yellow Pages, newspapers, magazines and the Dewey Decimal System.

[DizRotus]

Technology got us here and it is probably our best hope for the long-term survival of the human race.

 

Of the many problems in the world, the elephant in the room is population.  The Earth is a small fragile lifeboat in the vast sea of the Universe.  That metaphorical reality was best illustrated by the incredible photos of the Earth from space. Good or bad, we're all in this together.  We can't keep cramming more people into the boat.  If the boat sinks, we all drown.

 

Technology is accelerating at a tremendous pace, but not faster than the population.  Even if we solve energy needs tomorrow with fusion, i.e., no need to burn fossil fuels, which would eliminate humans' contribution to global warming, and if were able to feed, clothe and house the exponentially growing population, there is not enough room in the boat. 

[Jeff Matthews]

Technology got us here and it is probably our best hope for the long-term survival of the human race.

 

Of the many problems in the world, the elephant in the room is population.  The Earth is a small fragile lifeboat in the vast sea of the Universe.  That metaphorical reality was best illustrated by the incredible photos of the Earth from space. Good or bad, we're all in this together.  We can't keep cramming more people into the boat.  If the boat sinks, we all drown.

 

Technology is accelerating at a tremendous pace, but not faster than the population.  Even if we solve energy needs tomorrow with fusion, i.e., no need to burn fossil fuels, which would eliminate humans' contribution to global warming, and if were able to feed, clothe and house the exponentially growing population, there is not enough room in the boat. 

I wonder why so many people keep saying that.  I see no proof that the world can't handle the population.  I see lots and lots of great land, everywhere, that is waiting to be divided, settled and converted to constructive use.

[Mallette]

There was a story in the newspaper this morning concerning the big IP pushback to reserving some currently unused 5ghz bandwidth for vehicle to vehicle communication.  Towards the end it stated that, with a few years, these devices were expected to reduce accidents by 80 percent, estimating at 5.1 MILLION fewer per year, and deaths by 18 thousand.  The kicker:  This is NOT from autonomous vehicles but simply from already existing lane control, adaptive cruise, and similar systems being able to communicate to other vehicles automatically. 

 

Full autonomy is expected to reduce chance of injury or death to airline levels...essentially only those caused by catastrophic system failure or acts of God.  Wrap your mind around the transforming nature of that.  To do so, you have to step outside of a 100 years of human conditioning to a very high risk as being simply unavoidable.  Our grandchildren will read of and see pictures of the carnage on our highways and both quake in fear and in wonder at how anyone could steady themselves to such risks each and every day.

 

This is NOT the distant future, but close enough that I've now seen a massive economic benefit that is aside from the billions in damage and health costs we now spend yearly on automobile accidents and the many more billions from the fact that we will be able to simply stop building new highways as we will have a massive oversupply to the point we may even return some of that land to other uses. 

 

That benefit to the economy is that most all of us will immediately buy a new car when the numbers start showing that those in semi-automated vehicles are 80 percent safer than the rest of us.  My son will turn 16 in three years.  Do you think I am going to go the route of the past and buy him that nice, good mechanical condition used car that has been the traditional way to provide kids their first car?  The PAW would kick my ***! 

 

People will do without that big new TV and other things to pay whatever it takes for this safety, and that, in turn, will speed the fully adoption of totally autonomous vehicles and the day when it is a felony to manually operate a vehicle except in very limited places and circumstances.

 

I will see this in my lifetime, and so will you.  Not just because it's the right thing to do, but because it is an economic bonanza for EVERYBODY.

 

Dave

[Jeff Matthews]

Dave, just think what that will do to the DWI/DUI lawyers.  

[DizRotus]

The attached spreadsheet shows how 1 cent doubled each day grows to more than one million dollars by day 28.  

 

Unless we slow down population growth, the climate will be of little concern.

 

Jeff,

 

It's simple math.  Substitute a person for the penny in the illustration attached to post #31 and the empty seats in the boat fill up rapidly.  

Edited February 13, 2015 by DizRotus

[Mallette]

I wonder why so many people keep saying that. I see no proof that the world can't handle the population. I see lots and lots of great land, everywhere, that is waiting to be divided, settled and converted to constructive use.

 

Fully agree with the first part.  As to "constructive use" I know you are an urban lover, but for many of us "constructive use" is returning huge swaths of land to the beauty that was this planet until a century or so ago.  We have infinite room to expand and it's absurd to simply continue to destroy what is, though we know now probably hardly unique, but an uncommonly marvelous jewel of creation that is this earth.  While the rest of the solar system isn't in the same class of easy, it's definitely technologically practical.  As much as I'd love to think otherwise, current science doesn't have anything capable of getting significant numbers of people to other earth class planets on the horizon. 

 

Fusion will allow, and almost certainly see, the construction of multi-generational starships to that end but those will not have impact on the population of earth.

 

Dave