I'm not ignoring it, just wondering why over half the planet ignores it and lives in misery.
Joel Send a noteboard - 21/08/2011 01:55:53 PM
Whether or not our brains are slowly improving isn't really too connected to the assumed genocidal aliens.
Anyway, on a couple of those points, we've actually discussed them before and again you are confusing commercially viable with doable. If I need a hammer, and there's one for sale for $5 and one for $50 which are effectively identical, I purchase the former, that doesn't mean the $50 one isn't 'worth it'. If I need to build a house with nails $50 is totally doable. Your assuming that some of the techs I've mentioned are somehow non-feasible or need improvements to work... that's simply not true, they're just $50 hammers. Same as I couldn't sell an old 286sx PC with DOS these days, that hardly means the thing isn't worth the money, it's simply not commercially viable because I can get way more bang with my buck. Something like a Seawater greenhouse is not currently commercially viable, that hardly means it doesn't work.
When we're discussing feeding people, you can pretty much effectively expand as long as one person can produce enough food for two or three people total, we just do more like 1:50 instead of 1:2 or 1:3 and that you have confusion about this issue doesn't mean we've got something to debate, it just means you don't understand the concept. Let's say a quarter of population just did agriculture inside greenhouses, they could easily produce sufficient biomass for themselves and the other 75% to eat and drive cars... that's not speculative and is in fact horribly pessimistic about people's productivity. That other 75% does the rest of the work currently performed by around 95-98% of the pop, also not an issue. In a greenhouse, even unheated, you get way more biomass per acre and you get way more calories per acre since we currently favor crops that yield maximum calories per manhour not maximum calories per land unit. I feel silly even discussing this, it's like explaining planets have elliptical orbits, also this is merely an example to show it's doable not the route that would be pursued. A CO2 powered gun is doable, for instance, and if we didn't have gunpowder for some reason we could use CO2, we wouldn't have to fall back on using swords and clubs. As long as gunpowder gets you more bang for your buck, pardon the pun, you use it, same as gas is better than ethanol, it doesn't mean we have to revert to using horses and buggies if we drain the oil reserves or that society will magically collapse as those reserves diminish. The smart man prepares in advance but there's a big difference between preparing in advance and predicting doom.
I also have no idea why when things like this come up, so many people hear number like 10 or 20 billion and start getting these sci-fi slumworlds or hive cities in mind... well of course I know where they get the idea from, sci-fi movies and pessimistic pundits. A pretty classy and spacey suburban home with 5 people living on a quarter acre of land has a population density of 13,000 people per square mile... there's 50 million square miles of land, you could house everyone in the peak of 1st world suburban spacious luxury and squeeze 20 billion people onto 3% of our land area and your typical classy 4 story apartment building with lawns and maybe roof gardens can squeeze in about 10x as many people without much complaints about elbow room. All that matters is if you can feed them without having to use so much of your manpower that's there's none leftover for specialization and non-working kids, elderly, disabled etc.
Just to bang home this point a little more because I feel like you're probably just not familiar enough with the concepts to override cultural indoctrination. Let's say I dump 100 people on a remote island ala Gilligan, limited freshwater, not too much land, just enough to feed them. There's constraint is that fishing and foraging, even if not capped entirely, will start producing limited returns in terms of calories per manhour, they will likely settle into a pop somewhere between 50-80% of their absolute maximum because that diminishing returns thing will let them get away with devoting a fair portion of their population to tasks besides acquiring food, where 5 people might produce X food but 10 only produces say 1.7 X food, etc. If they knock down the 1000 or so acres of jungle there and grow crops, they still have a freshwater issue, they need water for themselves and their plants, law of the minimum, on some different island that's really cold and rocky but gets lots of rain they have different minimums. All very straight forward and easy, now this is where things tend to stop these days. It's a pain to push the envelope when there's still plenty of available land that produces food cheaper and easier then your next step... if that's not available you take the next step as it is now commercially viable, that didn't mean previously it was impossible or even hard, as you seem to think. Sticking to our greenhouse example - which is but one of many avenues - these guys get their hands on a few thousand dollars worth of plastic sheeting and piping. They erect it, and now under those couple of dozen acres they actually produce sufficient freshwater from seawater to grow crops and more per acre, while the rain that would fall on those dumps onto uncovered crops or drinking cisterns. This may not have been commercially viable but so long as the amount of new food produced exceeds the amount of food people had to eat to erect it and pay for it and replace the plastic from time to time it is totally doable. It doesn't get done because someone will come by and point out that setting up a small cottage industry that will net them more food via sale and purchase per manhour than going into the greenhouse business. Same again, just because my PC is way better than the one I had in 1992 does not mean that if all I have is the old 1992 machine I am not going to use it as a word processor and spreadsheet instead of going back to pen and paper.
For the life of me, I have no idea why you seem to keep ignoring this, I'm quite sure we've had this conversation - even this specific example - on prior occasions.
Anyway, on a couple of those points, we've actually discussed them before and again you are confusing commercially viable with doable. If I need a hammer, and there's one for sale for $5 and one for $50 which are effectively identical, I purchase the former, that doesn't mean the $50 one isn't 'worth it'. If I need to build a house with nails $50 is totally doable. Your assuming that some of the techs I've mentioned are somehow non-feasible or need improvements to work... that's simply not true, they're just $50 hammers. Same as I couldn't sell an old 286sx PC with DOS these days, that hardly means the thing isn't worth the money, it's simply not commercially viable because I can get way more bang with my buck. Something like a Seawater greenhouse is not currently commercially viable, that hardly means it doesn't work.
When we're discussing feeding people, you can pretty much effectively expand as long as one person can produce enough food for two or three people total, we just do more like 1:50 instead of 1:2 or 1:3 and that you have confusion about this issue doesn't mean we've got something to debate, it just means you don't understand the concept. Let's say a quarter of population just did agriculture inside greenhouses, they could easily produce sufficient biomass for themselves and the other 75% to eat and drive cars... that's not speculative and is in fact horribly pessimistic about people's productivity. That other 75% does the rest of the work currently performed by around 95-98% of the pop, also not an issue. In a greenhouse, even unheated, you get way more biomass per acre and you get way more calories per acre since we currently favor crops that yield maximum calories per manhour not maximum calories per land unit. I feel silly even discussing this, it's like explaining planets have elliptical orbits, also this is merely an example to show it's doable not the route that would be pursued. A CO2 powered gun is doable, for instance, and if we didn't have gunpowder for some reason we could use CO2, we wouldn't have to fall back on using swords and clubs. As long as gunpowder gets you more bang for your buck, pardon the pun, you use it, same as gas is better than ethanol, it doesn't mean we have to revert to using horses and buggies if we drain the oil reserves or that society will magically collapse as those reserves diminish. The smart man prepares in advance but there's a big difference between preparing in advance and predicting doom.
I also have no idea why when things like this come up, so many people hear number like 10 or 20 billion and start getting these sci-fi slumworlds or hive cities in mind... well of course I know where they get the idea from, sci-fi movies and pessimistic pundits. A pretty classy and spacey suburban home with 5 people living on a quarter acre of land has a population density of 13,000 people per square mile... there's 50 million square miles of land, you could house everyone in the peak of 1st world suburban spacious luxury and squeeze 20 billion people onto 3% of our land area and your typical classy 4 story apartment building with lawns and maybe roof gardens can squeeze in about 10x as many people without much complaints about elbow room. All that matters is if you can feed them without having to use so much of your manpower that's there's none leftover for specialization and non-working kids, elderly, disabled etc.
Just to bang home this point a little more because I feel like you're probably just not familiar enough with the concepts to override cultural indoctrination. Let's say I dump 100 people on a remote island ala Gilligan, limited freshwater, not too much land, just enough to feed them. There's constraint is that fishing and foraging, even if not capped entirely, will start producing limited returns in terms of calories per manhour, they will likely settle into a pop somewhere between 50-80% of their absolute maximum because that diminishing returns thing will let them get away with devoting a fair portion of their population to tasks besides acquiring food, where 5 people might produce X food but 10 only produces say 1.7 X food, etc. If they knock down the 1000 or so acres of jungle there and grow crops, they still have a freshwater issue, they need water for themselves and their plants, law of the minimum, on some different island that's really cold and rocky but gets lots of rain they have different minimums. All very straight forward and easy, now this is where things tend to stop these days. It's a pain to push the envelope when there's still plenty of available land that produces food cheaper and easier then your next step... if that's not available you take the next step as it is now commercially viable, that didn't mean previously it was impossible or even hard, as you seem to think. Sticking to our greenhouse example - which is but one of many avenues - these guys get their hands on a few thousand dollars worth of plastic sheeting and piping. They erect it, and now under those couple of dozen acres they actually produce sufficient freshwater from seawater to grow crops and more per acre, while the rain that would fall on those dumps onto uncovered crops or drinking cisterns. This may not have been commercially viable but so long as the amount of new food produced exceeds the amount of food people had to eat to erect it and pay for it and replace the plastic from time to time it is totally doable. It doesn't get done because someone will come by and point out that setting up a small cottage industry that will net them more food via sale and purchase per manhour than going into the greenhouse business. Same again, just because my PC is way better than the one I had in 1992 does not mean that if all I have is the old 1992 machine I am not going to use it as a word processor and spreadsheet instead of going back to pen and paper.
For the life of me, I have no idea why you seem to keep ignoring this, I'm quite sure we've had this conversation - even this specific example - on prior occasions.
Again, I'm not even debating how technically feasible it is to do on an effective scale, just pointing out that we've been exporting that kind of logic to the Third World (accompanied by manpower, money and technology) since at least the founding of the Peace Corps and yet to see much of it achieved. It's doing so much good Third World citizens have started learning how to fly airplanes into our skyscrapers to express their gratitude. Telling them how much better "just a few thousand dollars" they don't have could make their lives doesn't seem to help their mood. Like fusion power and so many other things it's started to sound like Annie signing about "tomorrow": It's always a day away, which doesn't help anyone today, or give much reason to expect "tomorrow" will be any better.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
If ever there was a reason to cut greenhouse gas emissions
19/08/2011 10:14:00 AM
- 863 Views
I've seen Start Trek, I know the real threat is you killing whales.
19/08/2011 10:34:08 AM
- 521 Views
I know
19/08/2011 10:36:22 AM
- 470 Views
You make a fair point
19/08/2011 11:22:53 AM
- 445 Views
There's so much wrong with that
19/08/2011 01:08:57 PM
- 501 Views
"They don't recycle; kill them all. "
19/08/2011 07:11:15 PM
- 496 Views
Very Space Hippy
19/08/2011 10:39:10 PM
- 514 Views
It's still debatable whether we've abandoned the evolutionary ladder.
19/08/2011 11:16:58 PM
- 590 Views
You'll welcome to debate that with a biologist, it's not my specialty or interest
20/08/2011 04:46:43 AM
- 545 Views
I've seen a lot of mainstream biologists suggest human evolution may be mostly mental now.
21/08/2011 11:32:48 AM
- 562 Views
Neither of us are biologists though and it's not really relveant anyway
21/08/2011 01:21:06 PM
- 505 Views
I'm not ignoring it, just wondering why over half the planet ignores it and lives in misery.
21/08/2011 01:55:53 PM
- 520 Views
If you have occassion to spend time in those places you'll know why
21/08/2011 02:38:44 PM
- 450 Views
How does literal mud huts as the norm respresent living standards rising "a lot".
22/08/2011 12:29:35 AM
- 570 Views
You seem to have cherry-picked what you wanted to hear out of my comments
22/08/2011 01:07:10 AM
- 342 Views
"It's a stability thing, not a Western greed thing" seemed to encapsulate your comments.
22/08/2011 03:10:17 PM
- 479 Views
Only if you really cherry pick them
23/08/2011 02:48:08 AM
- 492 Views
This seems to have descended into an insoluble partisan debate.
23/08/2011 07:43:07 PM
- 554 Views
*rudely butts in*
23/08/2011 04:38:33 AM
- 534 Views
American companies don't go to China SOLELY to screw the working class, no;that's largely incidental
25/08/2011 08:03:05 PM
- 583 Views
we should abdon the myth of the evolutionary ladder
20/08/2011 11:49:35 PM
- 383 Views
Probably; as discussed in Brams thread it should never be seen as predictive, let alone prophetic.
21/08/2011 11:55:09 AM
- 493 Views
Well, for this context I think the use is okay
21/08/2011 11:59:19 AM
- 463 Views
That's an interesting point about the NEED for fossil fuels as a stepping stone to advanced culture.
21/08/2011 12:33:59 PM
- 562 Views
Not a need, just an edge
21/08/2011 02:06:23 PM
- 378 Views
There's industrialization and then there's industrialization.
22/08/2011 12:53:35 AM
- 739 Views
If you were more familiar with engineering you'd not say something like that
22/08/2011 01:53:33 AM
- 735 Views
I dispute that industrialization is primarily about non-agricultural production.
22/08/2011 03:10:19 PM
- 642 Views
Well you can argue that with a dictionary I suppose
23/08/2011 03:50:52 AM
- 500 Views
I'm not above that, but the dictionary definitions I've found are disappointingly self-referential.
24/08/2011 02:25:21 AM
- 428 Views
That tends to be the case, it is a kinda vague term outside of specific context
24/08/2011 09:12:19 AM
- 588 Views
Tends to moot that part of the debate though.
26/08/2011 12:31:21 AM
- 600 Views
and we wonder why so many people ignore "scientist"
19/08/2011 01:17:38 PM
- 519 Views
Think it's better to ignore "reporters on a slow news day," to be honest *NM*
19/08/2011 02:38:23 PM
- 191 Views
Hypothetical aliens are perfectly wise
19/08/2011 06:24:13 PM
- 432 Views
You may be confusing aliens with God.
19/08/2011 07:08:01 PM
- 458 Views