Oneiric 3 wrote: » Come to think of it, why should we care what 'the science' has to say about climate change? since it is science that created this mess in the first place, and basically destroyed and exploited every possible natural resource on the planet?
Wanderer78 wrote: » You will actually find the majority of our environmental damage is due to our economic activities, and over reliance on fundamentally flawed political and economic ideologies such as neoliberalism and particularly neoclassical theory, whereby ideas such as continual 'growth' must be persued at all costs, even though it is having detrimental negative effects on our planet, and if allowed to continue, will more than likely, accelerate the end of our plants ability to harbor life, including human life.
Oneiric 3 wrote: » Thanks for the tip... but where exactly did I say or imply that 'all science is stupid'? Grant it, a lot of it is pointless, for example, why should we care if NASA sends rockets to Mars? it isn't going to make a blind bit of difference to the lives of the billions here on earth, many of them which are chronically underfed with no basic healthcare available to them. Come to think of it, why should we care what 'the science' has to say about climate change? since it is science that created this mess in the first place, and basically destroyed and exploited every possible natural resource on the planet? Maybe science should stick to what it knows best, like creating even more 'sophisticated' weaponry so murderous western states can sell them for huge profits to already war crippled countries.
Oneiric 3 wrote: » I totally agree, but all this is not possible without 'the science'. Let's not pretend that 'science', in its base form, and in all of its forms, has any moral or ethical standing.
dense wrote: » What is the point of calling "natural resources" natural resources if it is to be inferred that we should not exploit them as resources? Where was the "alternative" resource going to come from, which provided the means for advancement in all aspects of life since the industrial revolution? (I accept advancements can be judged subjectively, but the option remains for everyone to eschew them, but I don't see that happening.) If someone answers "the sun", "windmills", the progress of that technology stalled and was overtake unless I'm mistaken? Or are the conspiracy theories about "big oil" sabotaging alternative energy inventions and "disappearing" other energy breakthroughs actually true? I asked in the thread before, no one answered so it's not known whether anyone believes in any of that or whether they think it's bunkum. If it's bunkum it doesn't say much for alternative energy. Thing is, even the most alarmed by C02 here is unwilling to bother about their own carbon footprint, whilst using away on those aforementioned natural resources. So there is a strange dichotomy in this whole doctrine about how we, sorry, other people should be something something these natural resources that have been so peculiarly misnamed and whilst we remain contentedly exploiting them.
Oneiric 3 wrote: » 'Says the guy who is using a computer* You mean that same computer that is contributing to my 'carbon footprint', that you tut tut at constantly? The last couple of posts here really show just easily it is to misinterpret what is being said. I don't need a lecture as to what science is or is not. Yes, science is a tool, a study. But when people begin using it as a means to push a personal ideology, then it ceases to become science, and instead becomes a form of scientism. I also become deeply suspicious of people who use this scientism as a way to look back on the ways of our ancestors with a sort of foundationalless disdain. "Look how far we have come, people were sooooo backward back then, how silly they were", without any sense of irony, because these are the same people who pontificate about how we are destroying the planet because of our so-called 'enlightened' and advance technological ways. Such horse****.
Oneiric 3 wrote: » Fair points Dense. You might be interested in this article that reveal that all this moralising by the chattering classes about 'climate change' and 'sustainable development' is just another means for a very privledgd minority to keep little brown people in their place.https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/10/how-the-world-bank-keeps-poor-nations-poor/ The world is falling down around them, and they can't see it. Too busy tut tutting about how bad we little people are by putting on a coal fire to warm our bots on a cold winter's evening.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeFCmGfadI8 They'll learn.. the hard way.
Akrasia wrote: » If governments of the world were more forward thinking and better educated and more scientific in their approach to political and economic policy, then we would have a brighter future ahead of us. If the vast majority of the best trained experts in a field are telling you we're doing something that is going to cause enormous problems in the future, we should listen to them instead of putting our fingers in our ears and ignoring them because of some wierd view that believing the best available evidence is some kind of ideological bias.
Akrasia wrote: » NASA and other scientists developing new technology is what will ultimately help solve the problem of scarce natural resources through allowing us access to minerals beyond our own planet, or recycle and reuse the mineral wealth already here, and develop new materials technology that will give common elements the properties that we can currently only get from rare metals, and these scientists may ultimately help avoid disaster if we can intercept an asteroid on a collision course with earth.
Akrasia wrote: » People who advocate for climate change action, like me, also advocate for better distribution of resources and climate justice (dense will probably have something to say about that)
Oneiric 3 wrote: » A nice, cosy solution but also based on pure fantasy which I find unbecoming of you. Most of our world leaders are 'educated' and are very scientific in their approach, but we see them as not being so because we don't like the approach they take. For all their faults, and there are many, governments have much to deal with, different groups to appease, a society to maintain and so on and so forth. You think a group of climate scientists, or scientists of any other field (whose educational qualifications are often very limited to a very narrow and specific field) holding that position of power would do a better job? I don't think so. People are not atoms and the complexities of human nature and society do not fit into nice neat little boxes You also suggest that politics 'abuses' science. How does this divert blame from those scientists who profiteer from the development of weaponry so 'advanced', with the specific intention of causing as much death and destruction as possible to the greatest number, that the human mind cannot even comprehend it? Picking out the 'good' bits of science and ignoring the bad does not make that bad look any more good.
Gaoth Laidir wrote: » That's quite a list of science fiction there. It all depends on this guy...
Akrasia wrote: » What part of that was science fiction?
Gaoth Laidir wrote: » "Access minerals beyond our own planet". "Diverting asteroids". Those.
Oneiric 3 wrote: » https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/03/world/europe/slovenia-election.html Charles Darwin would surely approve:https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/what-your-biology-teacher-didnt-tell-you-about-charles-darwin/
Akrasia wrote: » Darwin was a product of his time, he viewed the 'savage' tribes as a sub species of humans in the same way chimps and orangutangs are all different varieties of great apes. He never said he wanted these 'species' to be eliminated, he just thought that they would be out competed by the better adapted species competing for the same resources, he thought these 'savages' would be subject to the same evolutionary natural selection that other sub species are and would eventually go extinct He was wrong, and he was proven wrong by better understanding of human genetics and we now know, and have done for a long time that these tribes and 'races' are all homo sapiens with very little genetic differences distinguishing them from caucasian man. The great thing about science is that we can throw out the bad ideas and keep the good ones. The solution to bad science is better science. Politics and ideology can pervert this by clinging onto bad ideas because they have an emotional or ideological attachment to them.
Akrasia wrote: » I was arguing against someone who said the mars rovers are pointless by saying that these missions allow us to develop the technology that we will eventually use for other more practical purposes. Are you saying that if an asteroid was detected that was going to collide with earth, that we wouldn't try to divert it? Are you suggesting that we would never try to extract minerals from an asteroid once the technology is mature?
Gaoth Laidir wrote: » No matter how powerful we think are, no amount of lasers or space mirrors will be able to divert an asteroid weighing millions of tonnes travelling at kms per second. You're saying mining minerals from an asteroid in Space? How much exactly do you think we could get from one? How to do it? Which minerals are we so severely lacking here on Earth but are ripe for the picking out there in Space? As I said, Science Fiction.
Gaoth Laidir wrote: » As it happens I'm half way through reading this book at the moment. All about migrating the human race to Space Noah-style as the moon explodes. They intercept an icy asteroid and all, proper science fiction style. "Seveneves" by Neal Stephenson. Start reading it for free: http://a.co/9EZuwqx
Oneiric 3 wrote: » So, to sum up. Developing countries have the boot stamped down on their face (repeatedly) by 'concerned' penthouse dwelling climate advocates, but some flighty and unrealistic idea about exploiting planet Mars for its resources is 'scientific endeavour' that is to be embraced. Essentially, this all equates to nothing.
Akrasia wrote: » You're an expert at orbital dynamics as well as climatology and everything else it seems. "A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool" (Shakespeare) It doesn't take as much energy as you'd think to deflect a large asteroid so that it misses earth Tiny changes in velocity from a long way out will be enough to deflect ithttps://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-s-first-asteroid-deflection-mission-enters-next-design-phase
And there have already been missions launched to survey and return samples of Asteroids by NASA and JAXA
Oneiric 3 wrote: » "A product of his time'. This argument seems to be used a lot in the attempt try and explain away little bits of info that they don't like or does not fit in with their clinical, postcard view of the world.
Throwing out bad ideas and keeping the good ones does not sound like sound science to me. If science is 'amoral', as we both agree it is, why, in this case, are you applying your own subjective interpretation of it?
Akrasia wrote: » Where do developing countries get penalized by climate change activists.
dense wrote: How about right here, for starters?
