I'm bored at work.
Argue with me about something. If you are a creationist, climate change denier, homeopath, astrologer, flat-earther, geocentrist or conspiracy-theorist you are welcome to argue your case, after which I shall present a rebuttal, after which i might have a drink of apple juice.
Actually I don't think your avatar does look like a girl!
Or if it does then she's not the one for me to be honest. ;D
Quote from: Intense Degree on Wed 17/08/2011 09:52:06
Or if it does then she's not the one for me to be honest. ;D
Why not? Just turn of the light ;)
Quote from: └» Arj0n «┘ on Wed 17/08/2011 09:59:43
Why not? Just turn of the light ;)
Is that what you do?
Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Wed 17/08/2011 09:43:19
Argue with me about something. If you are a creationist, climate change denier, homeopath, astrologer, flat-earther, geocentrist or conspiracy-theorist you are welcome to argue your case, after which I shall present a rebuttal, after which i might have a drink of apple juice.
I choose climate change denying for 500, Alex. Not that I think it isn't happening, but I do think that actual planet movement and general process of nature has a lot of effect. But in any case I'm very mad that the world cannot agree on what's happening (or as it were, in what amount the change is happening) and there are so many different numbers running around the infonet. Also there is no negative side to turning to renewable energy resources...well not a lot in any case.
I guess it's like that Springsteen song says - we're all counting on a miracle.
Quote from: Intense Degree on Wed 17/08/2011 09:52:06
Actually I don't think your avatar does look like a girl!
Or if it does then she's not the one for me to be honest. ;D
You wouldn't know what to do with me honey.
Quote from: anian on Wed 17/08/2011 10:08:13
I choose climate change denying for 500, Alex. Not that I think it isn't happening, but I do think that actual planet movement and general process of nature has a lot of effect. But in any case I'm very mad that the world cannot agree on what's happening (or as it were, in what amount the change is happening) and there are so many different numbers running around the infonet. Also there is no negative side to turning to renewable energy resources...well not a lot in any case.
I guess it's like that Springsteen song says - we're all counting on a miracle.
A ha! I see your argument and I raise you a rebuttal!
The problem with climate change as a subject is that it is so heavily politicised. The right wing are convinced that its just the left wing trying to tax them (because thats what we do) and the left wing are certain that the right wing just want to avoid negative, short-term economical effects (namely Big Oil)
However, when it come to *scientists* there isnt actually that much (there is some although it's heavily in favour of the proponants rather than the skeptics) debate on the matter. The consensus is that the planet is warming and that the warming is anthropogenic (man-made). The media is guilty of playing up the issue however and often turn stories on climate change into doomsday scenarios. In the actual scientific literature the stories are less dramatic and studies usually come up with something along the lines of "Yup, planet's still getting warmer", which is not exactly newsworthy.
It's certainly true that nature can warm up the planet far more than the levels we are talking about. There have been times when the planet was *far* hotter than it is now but that occurred on a geological timescale which meant that the flora and fauna could adapt slowly to the changes.
Bottom line: Planet's getting warmer, we're doing it, we better stop it within a few decades.
Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Wed 17/08/2011 10:32:41
A ha! I see your argument and I raise you a rebuttal!
The problem with climate change as a subject is that it is so heavily politicised. The right wing are convinced that its just the left wing trying to tax them (because thats what we do) and the left wing are certain that the right wing just want to avoid negative, short-term economical effects (namely Big Oil)
However, when it come to *scientists* there isnt actually that much (there is some although it's heavily in favour of the proponants rather than the skeptics) debate on the matter. The consensus is that the planet is warming and that the warming is anthropogenic (man-made). The media is guilty of playing up the issue however and often turn stories on climate change into doomsday scenarios. In the actual scientific literature the stories are less dramatic and studies usually come up with something along the lines of "Yup, planet's still getting warmer", which is not exactly newsworthy.
It's certainly true that nature can warm up the planet far more than the levels we are talking about. There have been times when the planet was *far* hotter than it is now but that occurred on a geological timescale which meant that the flora and fauna could adapt slowly to the changes.
Bottom line: Planet's getting warmer, we're doing it, we better stop it within a few decades.
Yeah, but see, scientific consensus is not...well they don't agree that it's so much anthropogenic. And also your argument about faster temperature change is invalid since not only did species die out throughout history (not saying that man has made it's contribution there), there have been a lot of species that didn't adapt even before man, thus the lack of dinosaurs etc.
Quote from: anian on Wed 17/08/2011 10:57:12
Yeah, but see, scientific consensus is not...well they don't agree that it's so much anthropogenic.
Actually about 95% of scientific papers on climate change written in the last 40 years or so conclude in the abstract that recent climate change is due to man made gases in the atmosphere. If 95% is not enough to qualify as consensus i'm not sure what is.
Quote from: anian on Wed 17/08/2011 10:57:12
And also your argument about faster temperature change is invalid since not only did species die out throughout history (not saying that man has made it's contribution there), there have been a lot of species that didn't adapt even before man, thus the lack of dinosaurs etc.
That's certainly true. Climate change has killed species off before but the issue here is whether or not *this* climate change is man-made and if therefore we can do anything about it and the evidence suggests that it is.
Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Wed 17/08/2011 11:11:56
Actually about 95% of scientific papers on climate change written in the last 40 years or so conclude in the abstract that recent climate change is due to man made gases in the atmosphere. If 95% is not enough to qualify as consensus i'm not sure what is.
Where did you get the number 95 from, besides if took some research from 40 years ago we would be in deep do-do. And even if it is 95%, it is enough for 5% to be right.
Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Wed 17/08/2011 11:11:56
Climate change has killed species off before but the issue here is whether or not *this* climate change is man-made and if therefore we can do anything about it and the evidence suggests that it is.
This here is kind of loop logic so I'm not really gonna comment it.
Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Wed 17/08/2011 11:11:56
Quote from: anian on Wed 17/08/2011 10:57:12
Yeah, but see, scientific consensus is not...well they don't agree that it's so much anthropogenic.
Actually about 95% of scientific papers on climate change written in the last 40 years or so conclude in the abstract that recent climate change is due to man made gases in the atmosphere. If 95% is not enough to qualify as consensus i'm not sure what is.
But is there a consensus on the fact that it's really the consensus of 95% scientific papers and not for example of 9,5%?
Sorry, just trying to be annoying, while actually agreeing with your points. :P
Ok well let's get a little more technical about it then.
Obviously it's certainly possible that those 5% could be correct and the consensus is wrong.
Let's start with *facts*. That is things that *all* scientists agree on because they are based on objective data.
1 - The earth is warming up and the warming started when mankind started to kick out CO2
2 - CO2 in the atmosphere does cause the earth to heat up. This is basic physics and well established fact.
3 - levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have be rising. Again this is measurable.
Those things are all facts. So where is the debate?
A few skeptics argue that the changes in Solar radiance have a greater impact on global climate than CO2 and a paper was published to that effect (Friis-Christensen 1991). The paper showed an almost perfect match with solar output and temperature without even considering CO2 in their calculations. However it was later shown that their model diverged in the last 50 years or so after the stats had been adjusted for local climate variations and that the suns output had remained fairly constant in that time and could not account for the recent rise.
Ok but what about the 1000 years previously? The graph still matched up perfectly then without factoring CO2. Why is it an issue now but not then?
The answer is simply that CO2 levels have been pretty much static for the past 1000 years and so havent been a driver of climate change until recently.
The other major objection raised was that it was possible that cosmic rays act as seeds for cloud cover. The more cosmic rays allowed to reach earth, the more clouds can form. However the amount of cosmic rays reaching the earth is related to solar output which we know has remained relatively static for the past 50 years so that hypothesis is also blown out the water.
With regards to the consensus I should also point out that almost (i say almost only in case there is one i dont know about) every climate monitoring body in the world accepts anthropogenic climate change.
Unless you can offer an alternative explanation for the rise in global temperature beyond "its just natural" I'm afraid your argument seems pretty flimsy.
It's because all them new wave people keep eating lettuce in stead of good old meat, and all the cows are left around to fart their asses off.
Quote from: anian on Wed 17/08/2011 11:22:51And even if it is 95%, it is enough for 5% to be right.
A conspiracy theorist would argue exactly like that. However we don't need 100% to be justified to hold a position and we can't get to 100% anyway, at least not in the way of "It's 100% sure that A caused B". There is no absolute certainty. We can get really, really close though.
The problem is, given that the 5% are actually right, why do 95% of scientists reach a conclusion not based on reality? There's either a serious flaw in their work (not very likely, given the scrutiny inside the scientific community) or they are part of a massive conspiracy (which they of course aren't).
What I'm saying is that at this point, we are justified to accept what the overwhelming majority of experts in the field tell us,
even if it turns out to be wrong at some point in the future.
Reasonable doubt is a good thing, but the key word is "reasonable".
As for the numbers:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/04/Ratio_of_publishing_climate_scientists_who_believe_humans_are_warming_the_planet.jpg/220px-Ratio_of_publishing_climate_scientists_who_believe_humans_are_warming_the_planet.jpg)
(2 unsure, 1 says we don't)
What about this 100,000 year cycle I am hearing about, where every 100,000 years the earth goes through some rough changes in weather. Supposedly it's upon us, has anyone else heard this ?
Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Wed 17/08/2011 11:46:04
Let's start with *facts*. That is things that *all* scientists agree on because they are based on objective data.
1 - The earth is warming up and the warming started when mankind started to kick out CO2
2 - CO2 in the atmosphere does cause the earth to heat up. This is basic physics and well established fact.
3 - levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have be rising. Again this is measurable.
Those things are all facts. So where is the debate?
...
Unless you can offer an alternative explanation for the rise in global temperature beyond "its just natural" I'm afraid your argument seems pretty flimsy.
Wait, if I argue that it's natural then my argument is flimsy? Why is that the default stance?
Second, your 3 facts are again not really the debate, nor do they indicate any sort of influence.
Also we run into the problem of me not actually disagreeing with the fact that humans do make an impact, but rather the extent of the influence.
And besides all this, who's to say this is not natural progression, life will go on, even if it's just rats and insects and parasites.
On the statistics, you still haven't explained the source of 95% of the scientists. I mean there's a physics profesor in USA that went on national tv and said that a black hole will open if LHC is started, claiming the odds are 50-50, it will either happen or it won't. On the other hand there's a profesor here who says we'll actually be sorry we haven't pumped out enough co2 into the atmosphere cause we're heading into a new ice age, also a friend who is a dr of marine biology and says the thing about the ice caps is that they never show the winter times on polar caps...and he's actually been to Greenland and the South pole to do research...again, consensus is a difficult thing to really pinpoint, not all scientists have the same credentials. Also on that note you really have to make the stuff seem more horrible than it is to actually start things and worry the right people enough so projects get started and something is actually done about the pollution and the negative influence the humanity has had on the enviroment.
Quote from: anian on Wed 17/08/2011 13:03:36
Wait, if I argue that it's natural then my argument is flimsy? Why is that the default stance?
Because 'It's natural' isn't an explanation. There must be a force driving the change in global temperatures. If it is natural then what is doing it? It's not the sun because the sun's output hasnt changed. The level of carbon gases in the atmosphere has changed and it's well established that it's humans that made it change.
Quote from: anian on Wed 17/08/2011 13:03:36
Second, your 3 facts are again not really the debate, nor do they indicate any sort of influence.
My facts were just for context to show that CO2 is certainly a factor.
Quote from: anian on Wed 17/08/2011 13:03:36
Also we run into the problem of me not actually disagreeing with the fact that humans do make an impact, but rather the extent of the influence.
Fine. Show your evidence.
Quote from: anian on Wed 17/08/2011 13:03:36
And besides all this, who's to say this is not natural progression, life will go on, even if it's just rats and insects and parasites.
True but I don't see how thats relevant to whether or not humans are causing climate change.
Quote from: anian on Wed 17/08/2011 13:03:36
On the statistics, you still haven't explained the source of 95% of the scientists.
Ok here: I'll use Khris' 97% stat instead
Quote
The 97% figure comes from two independent studies, each employing different methodologies. One study surveyed all climate scientists who have publicly signed declarations supporting or rejecting the consensus (Anderegg 2010). Another study directly asked earth scientists the following question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" They found 97% of actively publishing climate scientists answered yes (Doran 2009).
Notice that these are "actively publishing climate scientists" not some astrophysicist with shares in BP.
Quote from: anian on Wed 17/08/2011 13:03:36
I mean there's a physics profesor in USA that went on national tv and said that a black hole will open if LHC is started, claiming the odds are 50-50, it will either happen or it won't.
You'll notice that he wasn't part of a 97% consensus.
Quote from: anian on Wed 17/08/2011 13:03:36
On the other hand there's a profesor here who says we'll actually be sorry we haven't pumped out enough co2 into the atmosphere cause we're heading into a new ice age.
This was a common belief amongst scientists in the 70s. It was thought that pollutants and other aerosols would reflect the suns light and overcome the effects of carbon gases.
It was proven wrong. We moved on.
Quote from: anian on Wed 17/08/2011 13:03:36
also a friend who is a dr of marine biology and says the thing about the ice caps is that they never show the winter times on polar caps
Ice caps are used in the media because they are obvious physical signs of change. They arent used by scientists to measure the current temperature of the earth. (although ice cores are used for historic proxy data)
Quote from: anian on Wed 17/08/2011 13:03:36
consensus is a difficult thing to really pinpoint, not all scientists have the same credentials.
It's true that scientists don't all have the same credentials. Thats why surveys for scientific consensus are stratified and are only directed at "actively published climate scientists". So when I say that there is a 97% consensus amongst actively publishing climate scientists, thats exactly what i mean.
Quote from: anian on Wed 17/08/2011 13:03:36
Also on that note you really have to make the stuff seem more horrible than it is to actually start things and worry the right people enough so projects get started and something is actually done about the pollution and the negative influence the humanity has had on the enviroment.
That's true if you are the IPCC or Al Gore but not if you are climate scientist. You can't fudge data in peer reviewed science. You get caught more or less instantly and your career is basically over. The peer review process is self-normalising because scientists check each others results to make sure they are valid.
Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Wed 17/08/2011 13:28:10
Because 'It's natural' isn't an explanation. There must be a force driving the change in global temperatures. If it is natural then what is doing it? It's not the sun because the sun's output hasnt changed. The level of carbon gases in the atmosphere has changed and it's well established that it's humans that made it change.
...but that logic doesn't apply to the origins of the universe itself, of course! ;)
(http://www.brandautopsy.com/images/old/6a00d8341bf89d53ef01156fc7dd2f970c-pi.jpg)
Quote from: anian on Wed 17/08/2011 13:03:36I mean there's a physics profesor in USA that went on national tv and said that a black hole will open if LHC is started, claiming the odds are 50-50, it will either happen or it won't.
Your point being? It was win-win for him; if a black hole had actually opened, he'd be the celebrated guy who was right when all in CERN were wrong (nobody would care that he didn't predict this would happen
100%). No black hole opened, but we will never know if it was a 50-50 chance, so nobody can say that he was wrong.
As far as I'm concerned, he should've shut up.
Wasn't a very very tiny black hole what the CERN guys in fact hoped for anyway? Don't know, just thought I'd heard something to that effect.
Quote from: Intense Degree on Wed 17/08/2011 14:04:44
Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Wed 17/08/2011 13:28:10
Because 'It's natural' isn't an explanation. [...]
...but that logic doesn't apply to the origins of the universe itself, of course! ;)
Your point being? We (human scientists) have already established what caused global warming.
"It's natural" isn't an explanation with regard to "what caused global warming?", just as it isn't an explanation for "what killed JFK?"
Other things, like for instance earthquakes, have natural (as opposed to man-made) causes, just as the universe itself.
Well, I bet whatever humans will decide to do meaning to improve the situation, their method will only make it even worse for the nature in the long run, so ultimately it's not particularly important who will convince who what to spend money on.
Quote from: Khris on Wed 17/08/2011 14:05:07
Your point being? We (human scientists) have already established what caused global warming.
"It's natural" isn't an explanation with regard to "what caused global warming?", just as it isn't an explanation for "what killed JFK?"
Other things, like for instance earthquakes, have natural (as opposed to man-made) causes, just as the universe itself.
Obviously, you are correct in terms of JFK, as even conspiracy theorists will accept that it was a bullet, or at least if they do not they deny it in the face of countless witnesses who were there at the time.
However, "it's natural" still is not enough for me for earthquakes or the universe itself. Even the mechanics of tectonic plate shift or the effect of volcanic eruptions do not go far enough (by which I mean they explain what is happening but not why) and I stick with Calin's logical process (although he did not apply it as I am doing and I am not suggesting that he did) to ask what is behind these things bringing about changes such as the origin of the universe. There must be a force doing/having done it.
Current scientific thinking tells us that there has been climate change previously and clearly not influenced by man. Why then can climate change not be natural? (not that I am saying it is in the present case). Because "it's natural" is not enough and there must be a force behind it.
Quote from: Intense Degree on Wed 17/08/2011 14:36:22
Current scientific thinking tells us that there has been climate change previously and clearly not influenced by man. Why then can climate change not be natural? (not that I am saying it is in the present case). Because "it's natural" is not enough and there must be a force behind it.
It
can be natural, of course. It's just that saying "it's natural" isn't an explanation. It just means "
not caused by humans." It doesn't tell us anything about what
is causing it. An explanation would have to identify (and provide evidence for) a cause.
But it does not mean that there must be "a force" behind it, if by that you mean a guiding intelligence.
Quote from: Intense Degree on Wed 17/08/2011 14:36:22
However, "it's natural" still is not enough for me for earthquakes or the universe itself. Even the mechanics of tectonic plate shift or the effect of volcanic eruptions do not go far enough (by which I mean they explain what is happening but not why) and I stick with Calin's logical process (although he did not apply it as I am doing and I am not suggesting that he did) to ask what is behind these things bringing about changes such as the origin of the universe. There must be a force doing/having done it.
Re: Earthquakes
We have a very good understanding of why and how earthquakes happen. The how is the plate tectonics part and why is the heat in the core of the earth. Any geologically active planet would have the same thing. It's really no mystery.
Quote from: Intense Degree on Wed 17/08/2011 14:36:22
Current scientific thinking tells us that there has been climate change previously and clearly not influenced by man. Why then can climate change not be natural? (not that I am saying it is in the present case). Because "it's natural" is not enough and there must be a force behind it.
The earth climate is regulated by the amount of heat coming in and the amount going out. If you mess with either of those values the climate will change.
In this case we are trapping more heat in with CO2
@ Snarky
Yes, and this is why I say it is not enough and that there must be a cause/force whether Human or otherwise.
In terms of the word force, I used it to mean "external influencing factor" in the way I assumed (although perhaps incorrectly) Calin had used it.
@ Calin
Earthquakes: Yes, the mechanics of it are reasonably clear, but not the how and why of how they (the mechanics) came to be.
Climate: Agree and I should underline I am not denying climate change or disagreeing that it is overwhelmingly likely to be caused/contributed to by man currently.
Quote from: Intense Degree link=topic=44225.msg589534#msg589534
Earthquakes: Yes, the mechanics of it are reasonably clear, but not the how and why of how they (the mechanics) came to be.
/quote]
depends how broadly you're talking here. If by "the mechanics" you means "all of the physical universe" then fine.
In the first part of the sentence I was referring to Earthquakes specifically, although the second part of the sentence, and the main point really I suppose, does indeed refer to all of the physical universe (obviously including earthquakes!)
So are you done with work, Calin? I'm getting kind of bored.
Earthquakes happen because the earth's crust is very thin and the major landmasses that once made up Pangaea are on free-floating chunks of rock that are constantly moving due to the flow of our consistently spinning molten core. The spinning is caused by angular momentum caused by the Earth's orbit around our sun, which is a matter of gravity, physics and all sorts of very complex mathematical stuff that is way over my head. The simplest explanation is it's all gravity's fault, though I'm sure someone with a more scientific background could discredit that statement easily enough.
Einstein's theory of general relativity gives some pretty decent reasons for these phenomena - mostly the interaction of massive objects upon one another in the "fabric of space-time".
Now, on the subject of Earthquakes - whatever the reason, they certainly happen, and can suck quite a bit. Even so, it's quite the sight to behold when you get to be one of the few that can experience something that awe-inspiringly destructive firsthand.
I think I got a little off-topic, or just explained something that didn't really need explanation. Were we talking about creationism here? I'm a little out of touch. Carry on.
A very intersting quesiton has been raised then dropped : "Whether or not climate change has been caused by humans, should we try to fix it?"
The answer is totally YES, because an increase of only a few degrees completely messes with the ecosphere :
1. it causes mass extinctions (it starts slowly but then gets worse and worse, the food chain being broken -- and when I say "food chain", don't only think of cute pandas, but also of microorganisms such as bacterias, virus, etc.)
2. it completely disturbs the mechanics of air streams and oceans streams, at a planetary scale, causing disasters such as violent climate changes (storms, etc.), earthquakes, drought, etc. This also starts very slowly until it reaches some sort of threshold and becomes very serious.
Consequences of point 1 are that it might become hotter and hotter for our asses on this planet when the microorganisms start mutating faster and faster to adapt. Think of very agressive viruses popping out faster than we can cure them...
Consequences of point 2 are obvious: Nobody wants to live on a planet with summer like Sahara and Winter like Siberia, with Earthquakes inbetween.
Considering it's most likely our fault, it's a matter of responsibility to fix it, for future generations.
I want to argue too! 8)
Global warming
Yes we humans have had an effect on global temperature and climate.
No it is not a destructive "Oh noez, the world will be ruined" sort of effect.
Before industrialization, before humans began to alter the climate with pollution and else, there have been warmer times, there have been ice ages and there have and will be "mood swings" on a planetary scale. Species have lived and died and the world has, and will adjust and recover, changed and altered, but it will recover. Species will and should become extinct, as this is what created new openings in the animal population of our planet to evolve new forms of creatures in. You know: breaking eggs to make an omelet sort of thing.
Will these changes cause human population to decrease? Hopefully yes, or humanity must decrease population by itself (World War 3 etc).
Can humankind stop the climate change: no and we should not. It will happen one way or the other, instead of trying to stop it, we should put our resources towards researching ways to ensure at least some of us survive the big changes. Change is good and should be encouraged to keep evolution going planetwide.
Quote from: WHAM on Thu 18/08/2011 12:41:40
Can humankind stop the climate change: no and we should not. It will happen one way or the other
Why do you say that? This morning again I was reading the upper limit of CO2 megatons that shouldn't be reached by 2030 in order to limit the climate change to "only" 2 degrees.
It has happened before, there should be no reason for it to not happen again. Unless we expected that humankind's appearance and spread across the world somehow meant that the world climate would STOP changing because we're just such dandy fellows.
There's nothing better, than trolling. So there is my amazing attempt at it.
Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Wed 17/08/2011 09:43:19
i might have a drink of apple juice.
Well I saved up a butt load of Tropicana 'pure premium' juice (100% squeezed) codes.
But it seems you no longer need them so, I incinerated them.
Quote from: WHAM on Thu 18/08/2011 13:03:16
It has happened before, there should be no reason for it to not happen again.
Actually, man-made global climate change hasn't happened before. Tons of species dying out, yes.
As an outside observer I could very well say that "yeah, it's just evolution, humans messed up, but they'll die and earth will live on, and eventually other species will rise".
However, as a part of the human race, we have an obligation not so much towards "Gaia", if you will, but our children and their children. It's irresponsible and egotistical to shrug off a catastrophe the might be preventable by pointing to "the natural course of life" or something like that.
Real people are going to die by the thousands if not millions if we decide to sit back and watch.
Again, I understand the reasoning behind "over 99,9% of all species died out, now it's our turn", but I strongly disagree with not even trying to fix things.
Also, trolls, GTFO.
Quote from: Khris on Thu 18/08/2011 14:30:30
Quote from: WHAM on Thu 18/08/2011 13:03:16
It has happened before, there should be no reason for it to not happen again.
Actually, man-made global climate change hasn't happened before. Tons of species dying out, yes.
As an outside observer I could very well say that "yeah, it's just evolution, humans messed up, but they'll die and earth will live on, and eventually other species will rise".
However, as a part of the human race, we have an obligation not so much towards "Gaia", if you will, but our children and their children.
Yeah that's pretty much my opinion too and what I developped a few posts ago : this time we're in the middle of it and we'll have our children pay for it... So it's rather different from previous mass extinctions, unless you have no empathy at all?!?
Quote from: Khris on Thu 18/08/2011 14:30:30
However, as a part of the human race, we have an obligation not so much towards "Gaia", if you will, but our children and their children. It's irresponsible and egotistical to shrug off a catastrophe the might be preventable by pointing to "the natural course of life" or something like that.
Real people are going to die by the thousands if not millions if we decide to sit back and watch.
Isn't it the same kind of shrugging off we do towards bad shit in general?
I strongly believe that we
can fix this world for the better, stop mass-starvation, corruption, greed and so on. But we keep on shrugging with complacency.
You're right of course, the daily grind doesn't leave much space to join idealistic causes and actually change something.
A cynical realist (and I tend to be one to be honest) would say that they alone can't do anything anyway so why even try. And they have a point, but at least they acknowledge that their inaction is part of the problem.
And of course we won't solve anything by discussing it in an adventure forum. But I think it's mainly about raising consciousness.
Quote from: Khris on Thu 18/08/2011 15:09:23
You're right of course, the daily grind doesn't leave much space to join idealistic causes and actually change something.
A cynical realist (and I tend to be one to be honest) would say that they alone can't do anything anyway so why even try. And they have a point, but at least they acknowledge that their inaction is part of the problem.
And of course we won't solve anything by discussing it in an adventure forum. But I think it's mainly about raising consciousness.
I think we need a kind of a reboot of the whole civilization anyway.
Well fifty or so years from now, when most religions have died out, this is going to happen anyway ;)
Let me be the existential one here and say that regardless of morals or ethics or empathy or anything of that sort, barring the validity of creationism or some other similar concept, it doesn't matter what we do. If we caused some massive climate change that brought about the end of all life on this planet, or hell, even the entire universe, none of it would really matter would it? The process would start over, and life would go on. None of it makes any difference at all.
That's a pretty cynical way of looking at things, but we all know that the universe is going to ultimately end up as nothing more than a fancy gimmick for an overrated restaurant.
As human beings we're rather emotional creatures, and nothing is more irrational than human emotion. I'm not saying that it's wrong to care about your fellow man, but let's be realistic. We're never going to achieve utopia because people are too selfish and greedy to allow it to happen. We understand that we're mortal, but we spend our entire lives trying to get over on one another instead of trying to actually change things for the better. When one individual does actually make a difference it's all well and good for a while, but 50 years after they're dead all we care to remember is, "Yeah, that Mother Teresa was a pretty nice lady." We're too caught up in our own lives to give the time of day to anybody who isn't going to give us something in return. We all understand this cycle and anyone who says I'm wrong is just trying to make themselves feel better because they can't cope with the reality that people really are just absolutely horrible to each other.
I'm far from an exception to this rule, as much as I wish I could say that I was. I'm as screwed up as the rest of you. I don't understand it, despite a desperate yearning to be able to change myself. Maybe one day I'll figure it out. Unfortunately, as one of my favorite bands once said, "...and here at twenty-three it's the same old me..." That song actually ties in reasonably well with what I'm saying, although it's a bit less cynical about it.
Oh, and for the record, I don't believe any of what I said about none of it mattering.
Well, given the extreme technical and humanistic(?) development that makes the dark ages or the ancient world look like another planet, I'd say there's a good chance that at some point we actually will reach a kind of Utopia.
Go back in time to some kid living on the street a thousand years ago, with their existence defined by brutality, slavery, bigotry, barbaric living conditions, etc., and tell them about some of today's "white people problems" (my XBox got the red ring, that one girl I like unfriended me on facebook, etc.) and they will surely regard what we have now as absolute Utopia.
Let's extrapolate a bit and imagine that a few hundred years from now, we actually conquered hunger, illnesses and poverty. I don't think it's that unlikely.
Quote from: Khris on Fri 19/08/2011 00:20:43
Well, given the extreme technical and humanistic(?) development that makes the dark ages or the ancient world look like another planet, I'd say there's a good chance that at some point we actually will reach a kind of Utopia.
Of course the definition of Utopia will be, as it has always been, ever-changing. I think that the human need to fix problems necessarily contradicts the concept of a true Utopia. (I.E. if a Utopia is a place with no problems we will not have anything to fix which in itself is a problem.) Of course, that is assuming that people actually need to solve problems, maybe it's just me.
BTW: Kris, I'm not arguing with you here. I certainly do think that a sort of Utopia is definitely achievable. (Hunger, pestilence, inequality, etc,.) I'm just pointing out a possible logical impossibility in the concept of 'Utopia.'
Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Thu 18/08/2011 21:30:09
Let me be the existential one here and say that regardless of morals or ethics or empathy or anything of that sort, barring the validity of creationism or some other similar concept, it doesn't matter what we do. If we caused some massive climate change that brought about the end of all life on this planet, or hell, even the entire universe, none of it would really matter would it? The process would start over, and life would go on. None of it makes any difference at all.
That's an interesting thought. Of course if you define 'what matters' by whether or not it results in the end of life itself forever then nothing we do matters, (Hopefully at least) but if you're going to define it at such an extreme point why not say even if it does result in the end of life forever it doesn't matter.
What matters and doesn't matters (I think) is defined by people. (Or whatever other possible creature finds value in things.) I personally value all of your and my, and most other peoples' existence and would like the world to not be affected in a way that eliminates that or any of the many other things in which I find value.
Sure, if we all die, it won't matter what we thought, believed, or did, but while we are here we may as well fight to protect those things we find valuable.
Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Thu 18/08/2011 21:30:09
"...and here at twenty-three it's the same old me..."
I never thought I'd see Relient K quoted on the AGS forums.
If at 23 you are still trying to change for the better, you're not doing anything wrong in my book. But, I suppose that's just an opinion.
Hey, Relient K is brilliant. ;D
I think that moving toward a better quality of life for most people is a realistic goal, but I also feel that we're always going to have Osama Bin Ladens and Adolph Hitlers no matter what we do. Sociopaths and psychopaths aren't going to disappear just simply because world hunger does. People aren't going to become better parents to their children. There's a lot of social issues directly relating to people's mental stability, and let's face it, most people aren't mentally stable.
That's what I was getting at there.
Of course quality of life is important. Hell, even moreso if this thing we call life is nothing more than a random happenstance, and when we die that's it, we're dead. I'm not trying to gear this to a debate on what happens when we die, I'm just saying that if the scientific community's consensus is indeed the correct one, then quality of life is even more important than if life continues beyond death.
So protecting what you personally value is of course important. The problem is when what "you personally value" ends up being something like exterminating Jews. :=
Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Fri 19/08/2011 03:35:19but I also feel that we're always going to have Osama Bin Ladens and Adolph Hitlers no matter what we do.
The important thing though is that in a better world, they couldn't gather a huge flock of followers.
Just look at the Scandinavian countries; they have the best quality of life in the world and thus simply don't need religion or fanatics of any kind who fight for a cause.
Hitler and Bin Laden rose to power because of their followers. Without them, all we'll get is a Breivik.
So once the two sources of fanaticism, that's religion and bad living conditions, are eradicated, the problem will disappear.
The only bad thing we might not get rid of is all the New Age bullshit like Tarot, Astrology, etc. though. Unless we evolve into vulcans ;)
Quote from: Khris on Fri 19/08/2011 00:20:43
Well, given the extreme technical and humanistic(?) development that makes the dark ages or the ancient world look like another planet, I'd say there's a good chance that at some point we actually will reach a kind of Utopia.
Go back in time to some kid living on the street a thousand years ago, with their existence defined by brutality, slavery, bigotry, barbaric living conditions, etc., and tell them about some of today's "white people problems" (my XBox got the red ring, that one girl I like unfriended me on facebook, etc.) and they will surely regard what we have now as absolute Utopia.
Not really another planet. There's a reason they call it "white people problems" or "first world problems." Put that kid in a slum in Caracas, Lagos or New Delhi, it'll feel pretty familiar. And Somalia might seem like hell. The main reason we have it so good is that we're extremely privileged compared to most people living today.
Quote from: Khris on Fri 19/08/2011 07:17:41
Just look at the Scandinavian countries; they have the best quality of life in the world and thus simply don't need religion or fanatics of any kind who fight for a cause.
Hitler and Bin Laden rose to power because of their followers. Without them, all we'll get is a Breivik.
Scandinavia has it pretty damn sweet, but you still have beggars, homeless, junkies, gangs, abused children and other misery. Though at a garden dinner on a sunny summer day on the Swedish coast, happy children running around while the grown-ups enjoy a glass of wine, it's hard to argue it could be more Utopian. Maybe if the Baltic was cleaned of algae...
Ok, smart people of AGS - now for something different (though kinda related in a way). I'd like to ask you what flaws you see in this reasoning.
So, I'm thinking about whether this is true or not: everything that's happened has happened for a reason. Or for multiple reasons, to be exact. I later discovered this was called determinism, but apart from finding out about the name, I've never read about it any further.
You can now skip the rest of my ramblings if you understand the concept.
Or you can just read on if you're sufficiently bored. Take this example: You find yourself in a situation where you're not sure what to do. You toss a coin in order to get one of the two random outcomes. Random as far as human perception goes, but in fact not random at all. Each toss is a consequence of several reasons, like which side is facing up before the toss, the height of the toss - generated by the force applied to the coin and maybe by the density of the air, the wind, the mass of the coin etc. (ok, ok, I'm no physicist, just trying to explain a concept here ;)). So the outcome you get was actually bound to happen. It goes further back, like a chain of reasons and consequences. Why did you toss a coin in the first place? Because it's an established method when it comes to deciding between two options that seem equally important or something. Why so? Because it's convenient: coins have two sides and they are usually within reach. Why are they within reach? Because they are used as a means of paying, which is a common task enough to carry your wallet around most of the time. And so on. Once more, don't take this too literally. These are just some examples to demonstrate this principle. And another thing, I believe you can use similar reasoning for why each body movement and mental process occur, and so on.
Also, the other way round: everything that is to happen has already been determined, but every event is determined by so many tiny little factors that it's probably too complex for any human being to ever be able to predict every given outcome.
Does that mean complete randomness doesn't exist? When I asked a friend about his thoughts on this, he said that even computers can't generate numbers randomly and that they just follow certain algorithms.
But then he did offer a counter-argument, which kinda puts a question mark over this hypothesis: randomness does exist even on atomic level, such as in the case of electrons, which bounce off at random angles when they hit something. Science really isn't my field, so bear with me here. How about the laws of physics inside atoms, why wouldn't the direction of each bounce be determined by them? Do we need to take a smaller scale to find complete randomness? And to go back a bit, if bouncing of electrons really is random, does it have any effect on everyday situations? Well, it probably does have some sort of effect, like how the rate at which new molecules are formed determines the composition of substances to some extent. Is randomness even the right word to use when it comes to all this?
Anyway, I don't have any specific question to ask, just interested in your thoughts about this. Come on, enlighten me a bit. :=
(minus points if this gets turned into a religious debate. :P)
The result of a coin toss is random to the coin-tosser as human beings simply can't foresee the physics involved in a coin toss (initial placement, throw height, rotational velocity and so on) and conclude the right result. When computers generate random numbers, it's similar. Even though computers aren't able to produce absolutely random numbers they can easily provide us with numbers that look absolutely random to us human beings as we are not able to calculate the algorithms used by the computer fast enough to foresee the result. That's the part that your post there was missing, randomness differs depending on who is requesting the random value.
As for the randomness on atomic level, I'm not sure that we, as human beings, have enough insight into these matters yet to confidently claim that electrons spray into a random direction on contact.
I realise all this is totally random for human perception, but I wanted to go beyond that. Just theorising, you know :)
Things like, if nothing is random, what is the ultimate cause. Not that anyone knows for certain, but still.
But that's exactly the problem. We can't discuss, theorize or even throw out educated guesses at things that go beyond our understanding as human beings. Whether or not something such as true randomness exists is something we really can't decide as there are a lot of random things in our world already of which we know that they aren't actually random, just random to us. And then there is stuff (chaos theory, random electron spray on contact and so on) that seems truely random but that we haven't really gotten any scientific insight into yet.
Oh okay. :( :P
What we'd need, in my opinion, is a 'spark' to the discussion of some sort. Someone who claims to be able to prove one or the other. That true randomness exists or that it doesn't exist! I've never come across anyone who claims to have prove for either side however.
I proved the existence of potatoes.
True story.
@Wonkyth: No, your father and mother did that, by creating you.
On topic:
This determinism stuff makes my head sad. Infinite regresses and ultimate causes and what not pops into mind.
I'm still not 100% sure on determinism.. quantum effects seem to indicate that there is a layer of randomness to reality which puts holes in determinism. Of course it could be that we just havent seen the causal agent yet.
However the real question raised by determinism is that of free will. Personally I dont believe humans to have free will anymore than complicated moist robots would. We take information and output actions in a way that is congruent with our personalities and the situation at the time.
Of course I still live my life as if we *did* have free will because that illusion is strong enough to humans to essentially make the question irrelevant.
My pretty simplistic take on this is that most people would change something if they had the chance to go back a few years, but only because they assume that in that scenario they wouldn't lose the life experience of the years they're going to live again.
I guess if they'd get to actually rewind their life, they'd make exactly the same choices again.
Also, to me, actual free will seems to be tied to the idea that there's something supernatural that uses our body as avatar, i.e. the soul. Since it's highly unlikely that there is such a thing, there goes actual free will.
Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Sun 21/08/2011 09:39:21complicated moist robots
Exactly.
On an unrelated note, here's a list of topics characterized as pseudoscience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience).
Think one of those is the real deal? Then hit us.
Wow, theres a lot of pseudo-science..
I take your Determinism and raise you a Hongcheng Magic Liquid!
I'll tell you what: Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
That not only makes fortune-telling impossibly, but also to find out whether there is in fact free will, or whether we're determined by past events.
This topic makes me think of the lazy bones paradox:
"If destiny designed a master plan which defines everything that is to happen, isn't it useless, for example, to go to a doctor? If I am ill and it is my destiny to regain health, then I will regain health whether I visit a doctor or not. If it is my destiny to not regain my health, then seeing a doctor can't help me."
Flawed? Maybe. Fun to throw out there in this discussion though.
Quote from: Domithan on Sun 21/08/2011 21:04:25
This topic makes me think of the lazy bones paradox:
"If destiny designed a master plan which defines everything that is to happen, isn't it useless, for example, to go to a doctor? If I am ill and it is my destiny to regain health, then I will regain health whether I visit a doctor or not. If it is my destiny to not regain my health, then seeing a doctor can't help me."
Flawed? Maybe. Fun to throw out there in this discussion though.
Well, but the person's fate wouldn't be to regain health, but to [not] go to the doctor AND [not] regain health. Therefore, if you don't go see a doctor, your fate will most likely be not to regain health.
Determinism is whack. I mean, if you're "predestined" to get cured of your disease, then wouldn't you also be predestined to go through the process necessary to cure your disease? I think the only thing that's "predestined" is that determinists will all be lazy assholes.
Not sure I understand at all what you're trying to say here. But I'll give it a try.
Quote from: ddq on Sun 21/08/2011 21:13:00
(...) wouldn't you also be predestined to go through the process necessary to cure your disease?
Yes, you would be. How did you come to the conclusion that determinism wouldn't include that? Determinism is about every single event, however insignificant it may seem, that has any effect on any other event. So, your whole path, from catching a disease to deciding you want to see a doctor to getting cured has been laid before you. Or if you want, the whole path of catching a disease and deciding not to see a doctor. But no matter which option you have chosen, it was meant for you to choose it. The reasons why you decided not to see a doctor, for example, could have been some of the following: you don't trust doctors; you don't have health insurance; you thought it wasn't serious; you had read Domithan's post about how you'd get cured regardless of seeing a doctor or not; or you simply got a flash that you would stay at home just like that - for "no reason", just to prove that you have free will. But even that flash was a result of all the processes that were going on in your brain at that time and which were subject to your previous experiences, the way your brain works and so on.
However. Since you don't, and can't know what is destined to happen (and since you don't even know if determinism really exists) it would be foolish to put any real value on this whole theory when it comes to practical situations. I think Calin summed up this "free-will" issue nicely enough:
QuoteOf course I still live my life as if we *did* have free will because that illusion is strong enough to humans to essentially make the question irrelevant.
Remember that determinism is not fatalism. Things are not 'predestined' in the way one usually uses the term.
All determinism means is that everything is part of a causal chain. Using the doctor example, you aren't 'meant' to better but you may have the correct disposition at the time to go to the doctor and the doctor that you happen to see (due to a different branch of said causal chain) might have the necessary skills (due to going to medical school which is another section of the chain) to save you from the ailment you have (which you got due to a another part of the chain)
Determinism doesnt mean that something will happen regardless of what you try to do (that's fatalism) its just means that you can't really choose your choices.
Yeah.. all these freaking terms... :P
Then I choose to revise my previous statement. I think the only thing that's "predestined" is that determinists AND fatalists will all be lazy assholes. :D
determinism is that if you go out and get laid, and then rewind time, you may want to alter things, but your character and personality won't allow it. So you will reach the same result.
Fatalism is that you will get laid.
omg TEH DIFFARANCE IS BBBBBBBBIIIIIIIIIIAGGGG.
There is nothing predestined or anyhow affected by forces named as destiny. There's only society and you.