9
   

Is the world being destroyed?

 
 
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2021 07:55 am
@edgarblythe,
This is an attack on science.

Can you give an example please?
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2021 08:02 am
Just to be balanced, it is not just the political left that makes the dire predictions of impending doom if we don't heed their words...

I remember 20 years ago, there were equally dire predictions from the political right that same-sex marriage would lead to the end of freedom and the collapse of society.

These predictions also proved to be overblown.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2021 08:37 am
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
Walter, can you give me an example of a scientific finding that you accept as legitimate that doesn't fit nicely with your preexisting ideological beliefs?
I've never looked at scientific findings with "preexisting ideological beliefs".

The demarcation from ideology became a component of the sciences in the course of the Enlightenment, which, in contrast to ideology and faith, strive to proceed in a value-free, neutral and intersubjective manner and to verify the validity of their theories and hypotheses on the basis of empirical facts of experience (philosophy of science, empirical-analytical approach).

I've learnt that already at school nearly 60 years ago, I don't think that my "ideological beliefs" (which are individual and changing) influence my view on scientific findings.
But it certainly might be that you can call an opposing opinion as being lead by "preexisting ideological beliefs" ... a great example was the "Historikerstreit" here in Germany.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2021 08:44 am
They kill a study if they don't like where it's going. They commission studies with preordained results. In the name of money. They corrupt science. But if I notice it I am using ideology to dispute science. Drunk
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2021 09:30 am
@edgarblythe,
As does Max, he throws out lies and accusations like they’re going out of fashion.

He is the only one with an ideological perspective, that is greed is good, **** the planet, **** future generations, make as much money and consume as much as you can.

Treat the planet like you would a hire car.

maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2021 10:18 am
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

As does Max, he throws out lies and accusations like they’re going out of fashion.


I love irony.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2021 10:20 am
My point is that science should be objective and that any excuses you use to not accept science should be applied across the board and not just to scientific findings that you don't like.

I think Walter agrees with me on this point and even Hightor hasn't disagreed with me.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2021 10:27 am
@maxdancona,
Quote:

1. The scientific establishment first found the links between tabacco and cancer, and never "defended tabacco use" since.

2. The scientific establishment discovered climate change, went through the proper period of investigation, and then came out unequicably to state that climate change was real.

3. I don't even know what your charge that "real scientists promoted oxycontin" even means. The drug is still appropriate for use in pain management.


Yes, maxdancona, I'm aware of the role that science played in demonstrating the health danger of tobacco use and alerting the world to man-made climate change.

However, there were scientists who argued against the connection between cancer and tobacco, and there were thousands of scientists, much to the delight of the deniers, who wouldn't, and still don't, believe the role carbon has played in heating the climate. (Some of them quite prominent.)

Quote:
Either you trust science, or you don't. If you are going to attack science as unreliable, then you can't use it to base your convictions about climate change.

I trust science. I don't necessarily trust scientists.

hightor
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2021 10:32 am
@maxdancona,
Quote:
This is from "The Population Bomb" written in the 1960s by Paul Ehrlich. It was a best-seller.

And by raising the issue it prompted many countries and individuals to accept the need for family planning. Perfect example of someone howling in the wilderness and thereby changing people's attitudes, which in turn, changed the underlying conditions which prompted the alarm in the first place. Population control was widely accepted for a decade or so, until it became politicized in the early '80s.
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2021 10:42 am
@hightor,
Once the scientific community reaches a consensus on an issue, it has a remarkably good track record of being correct. This is true on tobacco, climate change, and many other issues in the past century.

If you trust the scientific community but not individual scientists before the scientific community reaches consensus... than you and I are in agreement.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2021 10:46 am
@hightor,
The "Population Bomb" was wrong, dramatically wrong, on the predictions it so definitively made. It also made some pretty extreme (and troubling) suggestions, including suggesting that countries like India should be cut off from international food aid and allowed to starve.

I concede the point that maybe an ideological narrative that is factually wrong and proposes extreme (and possibly racist) policies can have some benefits in pushing people to think about using a condom...
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2021 10:49 am
I guess this is an interesting question..

Is it a good thing to lie to people to get them to change their behavior in ways that are beneficial?

Personally, I don't think so. If you exagerrate threats, than you lose credibility when an actually more serious threat comes along,
maxdancona
 
  2  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2021 11:00 am
@maxdancona,
It is my belief that no scientific institution should ever lie, or even withhold relevant scientific findings, for any reason.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2021 11:33 am
@maxdancona,
Quote:
For people with a certain type of psychology; doom is always on the horizon. It has been for more than 10,000 years.

People with a different type of psychology have been predicting that utopia is right around the corner for just as long. The second coming of Jesus, the afterlife in heaven, the 'workers' paradise' and the "classless society", "peace in our time", the end of the aging process — why not dismiss those people, too?

There's actually a difference between someone predicting doom because it says so in scripture and someone laying out the probable effects of economic trends in the future based on the availability of dwindling resources.

0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2021 11:41 am
@maxdancona,
Quote:
Is it a good thing to lie to people to get them to change their behavior in ways that are beneficial?

It wasn't a "lie"; Ehrlich was not intending to deceive people. His basic point was correct — overpopulation poses a threat to humanity. The "Green Revolution" and the advent of widely available birth control came about at the right time and managed to postpone doomsday for a few generations.

Interestingly, Freud is often derided for his "it all comes down to sex" hypothesis because it seems to be contradicted by our experience. But his findings helped people achieve more perspective on the issue and helped to change social behavior. We aren't as sexually fucked up as many people were in the Victorian Era...and Freud had something to do with that change.
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2021 12:17 pm
@hightor,
It’s like the millennium bug. That wasn’t a lie, it was a real threat, the reason nothing happened was because of thousands of computer engineers working to stop it in the years leading up to Y2K.

Just because a threat is averted doesn’t mean there was no threat at all.

Sometimes the cure brings its own problems. Some of the biggest greenhouse gases HFCs and HCFCs are used in freezers and fridges, prior to that it was CFCs that caused the hole in the ozone layer.

maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2021 12:22 pm
@hightor,
Let me ask this question, Hightor.

If humanity is doomed anyway by "dwondling NNRs" than why should we worry about climate change?

Telllme that humanity is great and will continue to progress solving its problems as it has always done. This motivates me and makes me want to leave a better world for my grandchildren.

Tell me that humans are useless and we are all fucked anyway and I will have a much worse attitide. Why should I care if humans are doomed. I am going to party like it is 1999.

It shouldn't suprise you that doomsday thinking taken to the logical exteme often ends in mass suicide.

maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2021 12:25 pm
@izzythepush,
I mostly agree with Izzy, although the Y2K bug was obviously overhyped. For the slow here; it was both a real problem and overhyped.

I was part of this effort... we engineers laughed at the time that they were spending way too much (we laughed all the way to the bank). Something can be BOTH serious and overhyped.

The ozone issue was a remarkable success Humans should be proud of that one
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2021 01:59 pm
@maxdancona,
Quote:
If humanity is doomed anyway by "dwondling NNRs" than why should we worry about climate change?

We "shouldn't" — there's no "should" with those sorts of choices. If you find yourself worrying about the effects and enough other people feel the same way, who knows, a catastrophe might be avoided, for a while anyway. If you don't care, you lose the right to say "Told you so" if it all comes to pass.
Quote:
Telllme that humanity is great and will continue to progress solving its problems as it has always done.

Good, so we can all sit around and count on the great "humanity" to solve the problem!
Quote:

Tell me that humans are useless and we are all fucked anyway and I will have a much worse attitide.

As opposed to doing all you can to preserve what we still have left...okay, glad you made that clear.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jun, 2021 05:26 am
Quote:
The purpose of Blip is to create universal awareness of our "predicament", in hope that someone will devise a less catastrophic resolution than the one that I envision.

Humanity’s Predicament
"...organisms using their habitat unavoidably reduce its capacity to support their kind by what they necessarily do to it in the process of living." (Catton)

This self-terminating relationship between Earth species and their habitats is exemplified by a population of yeast being placed in a sealed vat of grape juice. Yeast – single-celled microorganisms – thrive in such a habitat, and respond by gorging on the grape juice and breeding exuberantly. Inevitably, the irrupting yeast population consumes all the grape juice and experiences a “die-off”. As (human) luck would have it, the yeast population’s misfortune results in the production of wine. Another example of this self-terminating relationship is a population of industrialized human beings that have evolved on planet Earth, which was originally endowed with abundant finite and non-replenishing NNRs (nonrenewable natural resources) – fossil fuels, metals, and nonmetallic minerals. Homo sapiens – the most ingenious species ever to inhabit planet Earth – thrived in this habitat. We persistently and increasingly exploited NNRs, increased our numbers extraordinarily, and enjoyed previously inconceivable prosperity. However, to paraphrase Catton, we industrialized Homo sapiens have been unavoidably reducing the capacity of planet Earth to enable our existence, by what we have been doing – and must continue to do – to perpetuate our existence. Inevitably, remaining globally available, economically viable NNRs would prove to be insufficient to support our industrial existence – a scenario that is occurring now.

Section I. Earth Resources – The Fundamental Enablers
Earth resources (ERs) – renewable natural resources (RNRs), nonrenewable natural re-sources (NNRs), and natural habitats (NHs) – are “things we use” to provide human subsistence and to enable human wellbeing. A renewable natural resource is a naturally-occurring component of Earth’s planetary ecosystem that replenishes over time through naturally-occurring biogeochemical processes. A nonrenewable natural resource is a naturally-occurring component of Earth’s planetary ecosystem that does not replenish on a time scale that is relevant from the perspective of “human time,” in the event that it replenishes at all. A natural habitat is a naturally-occurring subsystem of Earth’s planetary ecosystem – an aggregation of RNRs and NNRs – within which the constituent entities exist in a self-managing equilibrium. An NH regenerates over time through naturally-occurring biogeochemical processes. All Earth species, including Homo sapiens, are subject to a common Nature-imposed constraint (law): Earth resource overexploitation – i.e., depleting a natural resource at a rate that exceeds the rate at which it is replenished, or degrading a natural habitat at a rate that exceeds the rate at which it is regenerated – is unsustainable.

Section II. Humanity – We Are “Exceptional”
As a consequence of climate changes and resultant habitat changes that occurred in the Great Rift Valley of Eastern Africa over three million years ago, our pre-human ancestors evolved biologically in ways that enabled their human successors to become ingenious. Ingenuity is the uniquely human cognitive attribute that differentiates humankind from all other lifeforms on Earth. Human ingenuity enables us to evolve volitionally, through changes in our ER exploitation behavior and our cultural behavior, in addition to evolving biologically, through random genetic mutation and natural selection. Ingenuity enables humans to adapt to changing environmental circumstances and to improve our wellbeing through resourcefulness, technical innovation, efficiency improvements, and productivity enhancements. As humankind evolved over time, the success of the human enterprise became less dependent upon the glacially slow and uncertain processes associated with biological evolution, and more a function of our unique ability to evolve rapidly and purposefully through human ingenuity. During the course of human history, ingenuity enabled humankind to significantly diversify our Earth resource mix, and thereby transition from sustainable, passive Earth inhabitants – as is the case with all non-human Earth species – to essentially sustainable, sporadic Earth ecosystem modifiers as hunter-gatherers, to quasi-sustainable, deliberate Earth ecosystem managers as agriculturalists. Humanity’s capacity to “control our destiny” through ever-increasing human ingenuity – and ever-increasing Earth resource overexploitation and disruptive ecosystem management – had afforded humankind an unassailable competitive advantage over all other Earth species. As a consequence of this advantage, we had become exceptional!

Section III. Industrial Humanity – We Are “Exemptional”
The human desire for increased prosperity – i.e., increased economic output as the means by which to improve human material living standards – within the context of the exception-ally favorable natural environment and cultural environment that prevailed within mid-eighteenth century Great Britain, spawned our industrial revolution. Since that time, our unparalleled ingenuity, as applied to persistent and ever-increasing NNR exploitation, has enabled our species to create previously inconceivable levels of wealth, which has afforded previously inconceivable human societal wellbeing improvement – i.e., unprecedented population growth, economic growth, and material living standard improvement. Through our unique ability to produce NNR-derived infrastructure, machines, products, and energy, we have increasingly differentiated Homo sapiens from all other Earth species. In the process, we have become, by far, the most dominant species ever to inhabit planet Earth. Not surprisingly, we have also come to believe that by employing human ingenuity on an industrial scale, we have liberated ourselves from the erratic vicissitudes of Nature that encumber all “lesser species” – we have become “exemptional”!

Section IV. Humanity’s Predicament – We Are Self-Terminating
Since the inception of our industrial revolution, we increasingly ingenious Homo sapiens have been depleting – persistently and increasingly – the finite, non-replenishing, and increasingly scarce NNRs that enable our industrialized way of life, and our very existence. Regrettably, because the Earth resource utilization behavior that enables our species’ existence – and that is essential to perpetuating our existence – simultaneously under-mines our existence, both our Earth resource utilization behavior and our resultant industrial lifestyle paradigm are unsustainable. As a perverse consequence of our unparalleled ingenuity, we have become enmeshed in a self-inflicted, inescapable, and self-terminating predicament – we are doomed if we persist in our unsustainable NNR utilization behavior, and we are doomed if we do not – a predicament that will resolve itself catastrophically for humankind. We will soon discover that we are not exemptional – that we are merely the extraordinarily fortunate beneficiaries of a one-time, rapidly depleting, natural legacy – and that we are the unwitting and unfortunate victims of our own ingenuity. And, we will soon discover that humanity’s self-terminating experiment with industrialism represents a mere 300 year “blip” along the three million year timeline of human existence.

"Nature treated human beings as winemakers treat the yeast cells, by endowing our world with abundant but exhaustible resources. People promptly responded to this circumstance as the yeast cells respond to the conditions they find when put into a wine vat." (Catton)

assets/booklocker
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Israel Proves the Desalination Era is Here - Discussion by Robert Gentel
WIND AND WATER - Discussion by Setanta
What does water taste like? - Question by Fiona368
California and its greentard/water problems - Discussion by gungasnake
Water is dry. - Discussion by izzythepush
Let's talk about... - Question by tontoiam
Water - Question by Cyracuz
What is your favorite bottled water? - Discussion by tsarstepan
water - Question by cissylxf
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 01/20/2025 at 07:00:31