ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 29th April 2019, 03:47 PM   #201
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,636
@caveman,
There is only so much honest discussion we can have when you keep redefining terms and concepts at will. And since you also seem to have difficulties with thought experiments as well, this may be a fruitless attempt to communicate, but I will give it one more try. Lets try Reductio ad absurdum in a thought experiment to highlight a new paradigm you may not have considered before.

How much money must we pay the garbage man to haul away our waste gold?

None right? We don't throw away gold because it has a value even after use.

But we do need to pay the garbage man to remove our garbage, or spend energy and resources doing it ourselves. This is because it no longer has value.

Furthermore, if there were significant value to be found in the garbage, then someone would figure out a way to obtain that value. This can offset the cost to remove the garbage somewhat depending on the situation.

Same goes to the production side. The value of gold being so great, it is seldom used in packaging and/or consumable items. Gold colored cheaper alternatives are used instead. It's just not economically sound to use gold in all but the most extreme exceptions. Sparingly used in more durable items, but again, whenever possible an alternative is used.

The tragedy of the commons only becomes real as long as the commons themselves have little to no real value and all the values seen in them come from their use or the products that can be derived from them. As soon as the commons has a real value, then it costs to destroy it and it pays to care for it.

Now go to something that in our current economic systems hasn't any value. For example, the forest itself has limited value on its own, and is considered valuable only when the trees are used for some purpose like timber, the animals hunted for food, the land cleared to make room for housing etc... but the forest itself? In current economic systems both far right and far left, there really is next to nothing valued for the forest itself as a system. Unfortunately this is a flaw in logic, because it is the environmental systems of this planet that support all life.
Quote:
"The nation that destroys its soil destroys itself." - Franklin D. Roosevelt
A better example would be in farming. If I have several tons of ammonium phosphate I can claim it as a real asset on my financials. I can borrow against it, etc... But the same quantity or greater of nitrogen and phosphorus in naturally really fertile soil, take that to the banks and they will chuckle and say yeah....you got a point, but no...
Quote:
"When farmers view soil health not as an abstract virtue, but as a real asset, it revolutionizes the way they farm and radically reduces their dependence on inputs to produce food and fiber." -USDA
So the strategy behind the carbon market putting a real value on carbon is as a proxie for the ecosystem function soil organic carbon (SOC) has in holding onto and recycling nutrients. Thus increase SOC means increased nutrients in the soil, and they become real assets instead of hidden assets.

Stick with me here....

Removal or destruction of a real asset is what we call a real cost. So not only will there be a value for that NPK naturally found in the soil by using the carbon proxie, removing that carbon becomes a real cost rather than a hidden cost. Increasing the carbon actually adds to the real bottom line profits too. Not just in increased yields, but in cash payments for the service of removing that carbon from the atmosphere. The markets can function in this paradigm because no longer is soil degradation a hidden cost, nor fertile soil a hidden asset, nor the ecosystem service of sequestration of atmospheric carbon in soil a valueless service. They would all have values that our abstract market systems have hundreds of years experience quantifying and balancing.

Of course there is the flip side as well. Removal of fossil carbon from the earth and burning it for energy would also have a cost built into this. These actions increase valuable carbon in the atmosphere, but in excess this atmospheric carbon is harmful. So minimizing this now real cost now becomes part of the profit and loss sheets of the energy companies too. They can deal with it in the market one of two ways, either paying for the service of sequestering it back in the ground by BCCS or CCS. Or by pumping it back into the ground themselves to pressurize their wells. Or maybe some other future technology...who knows? But in any case the cost is dealt with by the markets. And what a lot of people understand well, is that once it has a real value in a market, doesn't matter if the price goes up or down, someone is making money simply because it has a real value in the market. And the clever part is that now the price fluctuations can naturally balance the carbon cycle simultaneously to balancing the markets themselves.

Even better, these are economies of abundance rather than economies of scarcity. Because living systems regenerate and recover, unlike abiotic systems. Just imagine if the gold in a goldmine were to actually grow like a living thing! Never running out, continually generating income indefinitely. In an economy of scarcity this might actually be a bad thing, but in an economy of abundance it constantly generates new wealth. This is what a carbon cycle can give us ultimately once properly balanced, since we are using it as a proxie for living systems.
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management

Last edited by Red Baron Farms; 29th April 2019 at 04:42 PM.
Red Baron Farms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th April 2019, 06:39 AM   #202
ahhell
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,287
I haven't paid attention much since page 2 or so, have we figured out number yet? 42?
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th April 2019, 06:43 AM   #203
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 34,101
Originally Posted by ahhell View Post
I haven't paid attention much since page 2 or so, have we figured out number yet? 42?
"It depends."
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th April 2019, 07:40 AM   #204
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 6,103
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
@caveman,
There is only so much honest discussion we can have when you keep redefining terms and concepts at will. And since you also seem to have difficulties with thought experiments as well, this may be a fruitless attempt to communicate, but I will give it one more try.
I haven't redefined anything nor have you addressed any of the arguments I made. All you seem to be doing is repeating your position ad nauseam using a thought experiment that contradicts observed reality.

Quote:
So the strategy behind the carbon market putting a real value on carbon is as a proxie for the ecosystem function soil organic carbon (SOC) has in holding onto and recycling nutrients. Thus increase SOC means increased nutrients in the soil, and they become real assets instead of hidden assets.
You again not have a strategy but a preferred goal state, one with a market in carbon which has had exchange-value imposed on it - it already had "real value" namely real use-value (hence why the commons had already solved this problem long ago by relating to communal resources as use-values, thereby side-stepping the discounted-future-value problem and managing the resources with rules such as that each villager could only bring 3 cows) and what it didn't have was exchange-value. Again you've simply posited your preferred goal state without actually arguing why it would be preferable to any other valid goal state, and you didn't give much of a strategy either (ie a way to go from the current state to your preferred goal state). As much as you've given a strategy it was "proposing" to the vested interests so as to motivate them to use resources differently. Let's go with this for a moment, I'll play the role of the interests you're trying to propose this to:

Me: "Thanks for your proposition, I've made the calculation and your proposal appears to be less profitable for me than what we have now. Thank you, come again."

Now what?
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin

Last edited by caveman1917; 30th April 2019 at 07:41 AM.
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th April 2019, 09:21 AM   #205
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: A pocket paradise between the sewage treatment plant and the railroad
Posts: 14,786
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Me: "Thanks for your proposition, I've made the calculation and your proposal appears to be less profitable for me than what we have now. Thank you, come again."

Now what?

1. Business as usual. 2. Collapse. 3. Pitchforks.
__________________
A zÝmbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th April 2019, 11:14 AM   #206
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,636
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
I haven't redefined anything nor have you addressed any of the arguments I made. All you seem to be doing is repeating your position ad nauseam using a thought experiment that contradicts observed reality.



You again not have a strategy but a preferred goal state, one with a market in carbon which has had exchange-value imposed on it - it already had "real value" namely real use-value (hence why the commons had already solved this problem long ago by relating to communal resources as use-values, thereby side-stepping the discounted-future-value problem and managing the resources with rules such as that each villager could only bring 3 cows) and what it didn't have was exchange-value. Again you've simply posited your preferred goal state without actually arguing why it would be preferable to any other valid goal state, and you didn't give much of a strategy either (ie a way to go from the current state to your preferred goal state). As much as you've given a strategy it was "proposing" to the vested interests so as to motivate them to use resources differently. Let's go with this for a moment, I'll play the role of the interests you're trying to propose this to:

Me: "Thanks for your proposition, I've made the calculation and your proposal appears to be less profitable for me than what we have now. Thank you, come again."

Now what?
Many options, all of which are much much much worse.

Most of them involve a variation of this:
The Ominous Story of Syria's Climate Refugees

Climate Change Hastened Syria's Civil War

Syria's Climate Refugees

Or if you prefer a peer reviewed science journal article:
Water, Drought, Climate Change, and Conflict in Syria

You can continue looking at short term if you want..... and honestly there is a very tiny short term benefit for business as usual, quantified at approx 0.1% a year up until 2025 +/- when it starts gradually going bad in almost every economic sector excepting Norwegian farmers and the like. :P

The Economic Effects of Climate Change

However, you are wrong about AGW mitigation strategy being less profitable. When the strategy is taken conservatively, as I and many others have proposed, it actually is much healthier economically with much improved profits over that tiny short term 0.1% business as usual benefit. Drawdown

And of course you could opt for the regulatory tax and spend strategy the left has decided to take... at an economic cost of $44 trillion between now and 2050

So you decide?
  1. Do nothing and get a couple short years of tiny improvements in profit followed by war, pitchforks and chaos and a massive worldwide extinction level Malthusian collapse....
  2. Take a liberal tax and spend regulatory approach that would cost a very significant % of the entire worldwide GNP.
  3. Or take a profitable conservative market strategy designed to change our basic economies to sustainable systems.
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management

Last edited by Red Baron Farms; 30th April 2019 at 11:28 AM.
Red Baron Farms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th April 2019, 11:39 AM   #207
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 34,101
So here's a question: What's the minimum viable human population? Like the number necessary to replace humans at least 1:1 as they age out, without running into problems with inbreeding?

Whatever that minimum viable number: Is there any reason to have more than that many humans?
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th April 2019, 12:34 PM   #208
ahhell
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,287
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
So here's a question: What's the minimum viable human population? Like the number necessary to replace humans at least 1:1 as they age out, without running into problems with inbreeding?

Whatever that minimum viable number: Is there any reason to have more than that many humans?
A. Getting from here to there would be pretty horrific.
B. Cushion. You'd wan't some extra to prevent collapse due to some disaster or disease killing off half of you.
C. There probably is some minimum required to maintain some sort of civilization, I'd prefer some continued scientific and technological advance, which probably requires some greater number than the bare minimum necessary to maintain a healthy population.

Last edited by ahhell; 30th April 2019 at 12:36 PM.
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th April 2019, 01:33 PM   #209
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 34,101
Originally Posted by ahhell View Post
A. Getting from here to there would be pretty horrific.
Depends on the methodology. A "one child" policy would get there over time, with a relatively low impact on individual rights. Once we agree on the goal, we can figure out the right way to get there.
Quote:
B. Cushion. You'd wan't some extra to prevent collapse due to some disaster or disease killing off half of you.
Good point. I'm okay with including that in the overall "minimum viable" number. But we can count it as a separate value, instead.
Quote:
C. There probably is some minimum required to maintain some sort of civilization, I'd prefer some continued scientific and technological advance, which probably requires some greater number than the bare minimum necessary to maintain a healthy population.
Modern civilization seems to be based pretty heavily on industrial processes at large scales. And that has a pretty significant environmental impact.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st May 2019, 05:27 AM   #210
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 6,103
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
1. Business as usual. 2. Collapse. 3. Pitchforks.
Then the better option is 1. Pitchforks. 2. Expropriate and socialize the means of production. 3. Production for need rather than for profit (ie relate to the means of production as use-values rather than exchange-values). 4. No collapse, we have reached a valid goal state.

If you're going to use pitchforks anyway then you're better starting off with them sooner rather than later.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st May 2019, 06:03 AM   #211
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 6,103
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
Many options, all of which are much much much worse.

Most of them involve a variation of this:
The Ominous Story of Syria's Climate Refugees

Climate Change Hastened Syria's Civil War

Syria's Climate Refugees

Or if you prefer a peer reviewed science journal article:
Water, Drought, Climate Change, and Conflict in Syria

You can continue looking at short term if you want..... and honestly there is a very tiny short term benefit for business as usual, quantified at approx 0.1% a year up until 2025 +/- when it starts gradually going bad in almost every economic sector excepting Norwegian farmers and the like. :P

The Economic Effects of Climate Change

However, you are wrong about AGW mitigation strategy being less profitable. When the strategy is taken conservatively, as I and many others have proposed, it actually is much healthier economically with much improved profits over that tiny short term 0.1% business as usual benefit. Drawdown

And of course you could opt for the regulatory tax and spend strategy the left has decided to take... at an economic cost of $44 trillion between now and 2050

So you decide?
  1. Do nothing and get a couple short years of tiny improvements in profit followed by war, pitchforks and chaos and a massive worldwide extinction level Malthusian collapse....
  2. Take a liberal tax and spend regulatory approach that would cost a very significant % of the entire worldwide GNP.
  3. Or take a profitable conservative market strategy designed to change our basic economies to sustainable systems.
Me (in the role of the vested interests you're trying to "motivate"): "Thank you for your proposition. We've made the calculations and find your proposal for a carbon market to reduce our short-term profit. From your data it appears that we can expect, over the short- to medium-term, an increase in GDP in the West and a decrease in GDP in the Third World - sounds like our strategy of outsourcing production would be made even more profitable. As for your appeals to war and conflict and such, these have no place in a rational discussion, but I'll just point out Rule of Acquisition 34: War is good for business.

We'll hence go with number 1, sounds profitable. Thank you, come again."

Now what?
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st May 2019, 09:58 AM   #212
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,636
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post

Now what?
Those who fail to meet demand will lose their market share. Good luck with yours
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management
Red Baron Farms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st May 2019, 01:06 PM   #213
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: A pocket paradise between the sewage treatment plant and the railroad
Posts: 14,786
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Then the better option is 1. Pitchforks. 2. Expropriate and socialize the means of production. 3. Production for need rather than for profit (ie relate to the means of production as use-values rather than exchange-values). 4. No collapse, we have reached a valid goal state.

If you're going to use pitchforks anyway then you're better starting off with them sooner rather than later.

Actually, the better option is to make necessary changes for sustainability such as those Red Baron Farms has been talking about.

But we're not talking about the better option. You're talking about the option that maximizes the short-term profits of the politically powerful vested interests, and rejecting all other courses of action for failing to do so. I'm not talking about options at all, just predicting the results of that approach.
__________________
A zÝmbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st May 2019, 01:33 PM   #214
This is The End
 
This is The End's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,728
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
If human life has value, then more people has more value than less people.

This is possibly one of the most simplistic and unscientific statements I have ever seen on this forum.

I've only seen anything similar from people who are in magical creator cults that have brainwashed into thinking human beings are not related to the rest of the life on the planet.

But aside from that, it is also flawed logically on its face. For instance if you have a tomato, that one tomato has value. But if there is a 1 mile deep pile of tomatoes covering the entire planet the vast majority of them would not have value, they would in face have the opposite. In other words, there would be a point in between the two where adding more tomatoes does not add more value.

So either that statement is written by someone who has never heard of anything remotely similar to the law of diminishing returns, or it is written by someone who'0s support of a magical creator cult outweighs their support of science.
__________________
________________________
This is The End is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st May 2019, 03:28 PM   #215
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,636
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
Actually, the better option is to make necessary changes for sustainability such as those Red Baron Farms has been talking about.

But we're not talking about the better option. You're talking about the option that maximizes the short-term profits of the politically powerful vested interests, and rejecting all other courses of action for failing to do so. I'm not talking about options at all, just predicting the results of that approach.
His options have been tried countless times and failed countless times. They are even worse than the status quo and certainly don't have a damn thing to do with correcting the fundamental sustainability flaw in our economic systems. That's why when he pretends to talk for the "role of the vested interests" he simply hand waves away logic and all critical thinking so he can push the conversation to his evil Marxist agenda. It is so transparent that I have twice now had to bite my tongue to avoid saying something nasty. Third times the charm though.
Quote:
Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing. John Stewart
Back on topic though:
Quote:
We must all obey the great law of change. It is the most powerful law of nature, and the means perhaps of its conservation.-Edmund Burke
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management

Last edited by Red Baron Farms; 1st May 2019 at 03:44 PM.
Red Baron Farms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st May 2019, 05:24 PM   #216
Prometheus
Acolyte of VŪūarr
 
Prometheus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 49,169
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
So here's a question: What's the minimum viable human population? Like the number necessary to replace humans at least 1:1 as they age out, without running into problems with inbreeding?

Whatever that minimum viable number: Is there any reason to have more than that many humans?
An ideal number, somewhat above a minimum viable number, will be influenced by a host of potential value judgements as well as by how dense/disparate the population is, and how many jurisdictions it is subject to.

For instance, one difficulty with education is finding enough qualified teachers of each subject within every district, particularly those in less densely populated areas.
__________________
As Einstein once said, "If you can't think of something relevant to say, just make something up and attribute it to some really smart dead guy."
"I find your lack of pith disturbing," - Darth Rotor
..........
Don't be offended. I'm not calling you a serial killer. -- Ron Tomkins.
Prometheus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st May 2019, 07:15 PM   #217
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,988
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
So here's a question: What's the minimum viable human population? Like the number necessary to replace humans at least 1:1 as they age out, without running into problems with inbreeding?
The minimum is obviously zero. Easy to maintain, no problems with inbreeding.

Quote:
Whatever that minimum viable number: Is there any reason to have more than that many humans?
Yes. This forum would be no fun if it was 100% bots.

Using that criteria we can calculate the minimum acceptable global population. There are 956 active members on the International Skeptics Forum. That means the 'population' of the forum is 0.00013% of the total population. Assuming the ratio remains the same, since at least 2 active members are needed to have a debate, that means the minimum required global population is around 15 million people.
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd May 2019, 04:23 AM   #218
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 6,103
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
Actually, the better option is to make necessary changes for sustainability such as those Red Baron Farms has been talking about.
You've misspelled "deluded" as "better".

Quote:
You're talking about the option that maximizes the short-term profits of the politically powerful vested interests, and rejecting all other courses of action for failing to do so.
Hence why that option is delusional. Does anyone seriously believe you can make powerful vested interests operate against their interests simply by "proposing" to "motivate" them to do so? For example it was May Day yesterday, and as we all know the history of May Day is such that the workers wanted an 8-hour work day and they simply "proposed" that to the bourgeoisie and the bourgeoisie immediately gave it to them out of the moral goodness of their hearts...
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin

Last edited by caveman1917; 2nd May 2019 at 04:35 AM.
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd May 2019, 04:33 AM   #219
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 6,103
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
His options have been tried countless times and failed countless times. They are even worse than the status quo and certainly don't have a damn thing to do with correcting the fundamental sustainability flaw in our economic systems. That's why when he pretends to talk for the "role of the vested interests" he simply hand waves away logic and all critical thinking so he can push the conversation to his evil Marxist agenda.
Did you know that this paragraph can actually be made to reflect reality if we change "Marxist" with "capitalist" and apply it to your comments instead? As for the "evil" comment, moralizing is indeed the last refuge of the braindead.

Quote:
It is so transparent that I have twice now had to bite my tongue to avoid saying something nasty. Third times the charm though.
Your response to your arguments getting debunked is saying something nasty?
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin

Last edited by caveman1917; 2nd May 2019 at 04:35 AM.
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd May 2019, 04:34 AM   #220
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 81,556
Are ANY of the proposed options feasible? I mean, one thing you have to do is ensure that people will go along with such an option. Otherwise it's mental masturbation while the world burns.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd May 2019, 05:20 AM   #221
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 6,103
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Are ANY of the proposed options feasible? I mean, one thing you have to do is ensure that people will go along with such an option. Otherwise it's mental masturbation while the world burns.
Bingo! It's easy to make up all sorts of options, whether a carbon tax or a population reduction or a different economic system, anyone can do that. The hard part is coming up with a viable strategy to actually get there and stay there.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd May 2019, 05:58 AM   #222
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,636
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Bingo! It's easy to make up all sorts of options, whether a carbon tax or a population reduction or a different economic system, anyone can do that. The hard part is coming up with a viable strategy to actually get there and stay there.
Unlike your hand waving and vacuous comments with no references or thought at all, not only is a carbon market paying for carbon sequestration into the soil feasible, it is currently operational.
First Australian carbon credit units issued to a soil carbon grazing project

How much money per tonne CO2e can Australian farmers and ranchers earn via soil carbon sequestration?

As most people on this forum know I have been pushing this for almost a decade. Finally it seems that seed will be bringing forth a harvest. Time will tell if it catches on, but it is so economically foolish to resist positive change like this, I don't see it at all.

As for the energy side, those breakthroughs are also mature enough that most are already cheaper than fossil fuels even without the carbon market. Add the market and it would be crazy to continue to fight against sustainability.
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management

Last edited by Red Baron Farms; 2nd May 2019 at 06:02 AM.
Red Baron Farms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd May 2019, 06:51 AM   #223
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 6,103
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
Unlike your hand waving and vacuous comments with no references or thought at all, not only is a carbon market paying for carbon sequestration into the soil feasible, it is currently operational.
First Australian carbon credit units issued to a soil carbon grazing project

How much money per tonne CO2e can Australian farmers and ranchers earn via soil carbon sequestration?

As most people on this forum know I have been pushing this for almost a decade. Finally it seems that seed will be bringing forth a harvest. Time will tell if it catches on, but it is so economically foolish to resist positive change like this, I don't see it at all.
Me (in the role of the vested interests): "Positive change is that which increases profit, negative change is that which decreases profit, anything else would be economically foolish. Having changed your strategy from merely 'proposing' to implement a carbon market to enforcing one, there is indeed no problem making it profitable by implementing efficient ways of getting credits, such as deliberately producing greenhouse gases just to recycle them and get credits for it. A positive change indeed, don't you just love the efficiency of capitalism?"

Quote:
As for the energy side, those breakthroughs are also mature enough that most are already cheaper than fossil fuels even without the carbon market. Add the market and it would be crazy to continue to fight against sustainability.
If that were so then you wouldn't even need a carbon market to attain the replacement of fossil fuel energy production with sustainable alternatives.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd May 2019, 07:03 AM   #224
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,636
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Me (in the role of the vested interests): "Positive change is that which increases profit, negative change is that which decreases profit, anything else would be economically foolish. Having changed your strategy from merely 'proposing' to implement a carbon market to enforcing one, there is indeed no problem making it profitable by implementing efficient ways of getting credits, such as deliberately producing greenhouse gases just to recycle them and get credits for it. A positive change indeed, don't you just love the efficiency of capitalism?"
Yes indeed its a carbon cycle. Isn't an economy of abundance grand? Of course if you had to pay a market price for emissions, just to gain a market price for sequestration, and they balanced, it would be a sign that the carbon cycle was reaching balance too. Right now the carbon cycle is way out of balance. So this means the cost for emissions vs income for sequestration is high and likely to get higher.



Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
If that were so then you wouldn't even need a carbon market to attain the replacement of fossil fuel energy production with sustainable alternatives.
Bingo! We don't. It's already happening and has been happening for decades. Welcome to the 21st century caveman. Try to keep up please. The carbon credits are helpful in financing the changes rapidly enough to mitigate AGW. However, it is simply a strategy to speed up the inevitable, to grease the wheels of technological advancement.
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management

Last edited by Red Baron Farms; 2nd May 2019 at 07:13 AM.
Red Baron Farms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd May 2019, 08:35 AM   #225
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: A pocket paradise between the sewage treatment plant and the railroad
Posts: 14,786
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
You've misspelled "deluded" as "better".

Hence why that option is delusional. Does anyone seriously believe you can make powerful vested interests operate against their interests simply by "proposing" to "motivate" them to do so? For example it was May Day yesterday, and as we all know the history of May Day is such that the workers wanted an 8-hour work day and they simply "proposed" that to the bourgeoisie and the bourgeoisie immediately gave it to them out of the moral goodness of their hearts...

Again, you're missing my point. I am not promoting or opposing any course of action on a global or national scale. I'm predicting what's actually going to happen, as best I can figure out. That prediction, again, is business as usual until collapse occurs. One reason I'm fairly confident in that prediction is that it's already been happening for decades. (Collapse doesn't look like most people think it does.)

The problem with your suggestion of bringing out the pitchforks a couple decades early is that pitchforks don't work very well against tanks. In other words, elites don't fall until their own security forces turn against them, which doesn't happen while those forces are still getting their pay and privileges.

The same vested interests that will inevitably prevent reasonable agricultural reform will permit successful Marxist rebellion... that's a much better example of delusion.
__________________
A zÝmbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd May 2019, 04:19 PM   #226
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 23,370
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
So here's a question: What's the minimum viable human population? Like the number necessary to replace humans at least 1:1 as they age out, without running into problems with inbreeding?

Whatever that minimum viable number: Is there any reason to have more than that many humans?
First of all I do think that human life itself (human beings) has positive value. So as long as we can increase the population and still achieve the goals in the OP, I'm for a higher population.

Second, assuming standard distributions of the population (only a certain percentage would be geniuses or truly creative artists; some percentage would be criminals or otherwise not net contributors to society; and most of those in the middle would contribute, but not really create much that is new or innovative) I would want more population so as to increase the number of Einsteins or Mozarts or Shakespeares who would advance science, technology and culture.
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd May 2019, 04:28 PM   #227
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 23,370
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Furthermore environmentalism expressed through a focus on "overpopulation" and population growth has been a basis for far-right ideology since the time of Nazi Germany (see for example Ecofascism: Lessons from the German Experience) because it of course plays well into the hands of racists who are more than happy to - incorrectly - point the finger at third world countries with high population growth under the guise of "concern for the environment." I'm of course not claiming that the OP, or anyone else here for that matter, is inspired by far-right ideology but it's irresponsible to go with such sloppy analyses since this has real world consequences in fueling far-right ideology and recruitment (see for example the large section on "overpopulation" and birth rates as "environmental concerns" in the New Zealand mosque shooter's manifesto ETA: can't find a link and apparently it's been censored but I have a copy saved so if someone wants to read it just send me a PM).
Let me be clear that I'm not in favor of a "master race" or forced eugenics and certainly not genocide. I am for intermarriage between the races, and in the long run that might lead to more uniformity. I do think that we are at the very early stages of learning what DNA does and how we could possibly make changes to it that would be advantageous. We're not there yet though. It will take at least a few decades to research the possibilities more fully. The low hanging fruit will be eliminating inherited diseases. I'd like that to be available to everyone, not just the rich.

I understand the relationship between wealth and consumption. But I'd like a world in which everyone can enjoy a relatively "wealthy" sort of lifestyle, not one where we are all equally poor.
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare

Last edited by Puppycow; 2nd May 2019 at 04:29 PM.
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2019, 02:09 AM   #228
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 7,979
Given the advances in creating an artificial womb (see http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=336201), the minimum viable human population might be zero.
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isnít.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2019, 06:09 AM   #229
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 6,103
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
Again, you're missing my point. I am not promoting or opposing any course of action on a global or national scale. I'm predicting what's actually going to happen, as best I can figure out. That prediction, again, is business as usual until collapse occurs. One reason I'm fairly confident in that prediction is that it's already been happening for decades. (Collapse doesn't look like most people think it does.)

The problem with your suggestion of bringing out the pitchforks a couple decades early is that pitchforks don't work very well against tanks. In other words, elites don't fall until their own security forces turn against them, which doesn't happen while those forces are still getting their pay and privileges.

The same vested interests that will inevitably prevent reasonable agricultural reform will permit successful Marxist rebellion... that's a much better example of delusion.
My main point is that even if you were only going for reform then you should still aim for revolution. "If we don't give them reform they'll give us revolution" still has a much better chance of working - it's how we got social security and most other labour protections after all - than "If we don't them reform they'll give us proposals and moralizing diatribes." If you want revolution then aim for revolution, if you want reform then also aim for revolution, in either case it starts off with 1. Pitchforks.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2019, 06:33 AM   #230
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 6,103
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
Yes indeed its a carbon cycle. Isn't an economy of abundance grand? Of course if you had to pay a market price for emissions, just to gain a market price for sequestration, and they balanced, it would be a sign that the carbon cycle was reaching balance too. Right now the carbon cycle is way out of balance. So this means the cost for emissions vs income for sequestration is high and likely to get higher.
Me: "Far be it from me to complain about such profitable ventures as deliberately producing greenhouse gases just to sequester them and sell the credits for a profit, but I have to ask: How does this do anything about global warming?"

Quote:
Bingo! We don't. It's already happening and has been happening for decades. Welcome to the 21st century caveman. Try to keep up please. The carbon credits are helpful in financing the changes rapidly enough to mitigate AGW. However, it is simply a strategy to speed up the inevitable, to grease the wheels of technological advancement.
And how would you go about achieving that carbon market? We're going in circles here, you keep repeat ad nauseam about how good your preferred goal state (the carbon market) would be but failing to provide a strategy for getting there.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2019, 06:54 AM   #231
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,636
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Me: "Far be it from me to complain about such profitable ventures as deliberately producing greenhouse gases just to sequester them and sell the credits for a profit, but I have to ask: How does this do anything about global warming?"
It doesn't that's why i ignored your example. Criminal scams are not good examples for legit markets. So I simply answered the question and ignored your BS example.

No doubt your scam example is real, but it is clearly illegal activity according to international treaty. So given that, just arrest them, or fine them, as seems appropriate. Case closed.

Nothing to do with AGW. Nothing to do with my proposal to use a carbon market as a proxie for ecosystem function. Nothing really to do with sustainability either...except be sure as the collapse from the tragedy of the commons happens...this sort of illegal activity destructive to the environment will escalate dramatically.



Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
And how would you go about achieving that carbon market? We're going in circles here, you keep repeat ad nauseam about how good your preferred goal state (the carbon market) would be but failing to provide a strategy for getting there.
I prefer not talking to walls. It's been explained that the carbon market IS part of a strategy, not the goal. The goal is sustainability of our economic systems and long term civilization. You refuse this obstinately. Willful ignorance and redefining terms and concepts to purposely remain ignorant is a character flaw, and something I am not interested in fixing. Go learn how to think critically and rationally on your own. I am not going to be your teacher.
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management

Last edited by Red Baron Farms; 3rd May 2019 at 06:56 AM.
Red Baron Farms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2019, 07:41 AM   #232
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 6,103
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
It doesn't that's why i ignored your example. Criminal scams are not good examples for legit markets. So I simply answered the question and ignored your BS example.

No doubt your scam example is real, but it is clearly illegal activity according to international treaty. So given that, just arrest them, or fine them, as seems appropriate. Case closed.

Nothing to do with AGW. Nothing to do with my proposal to use a carbon market as a proxie for ecosystem function. Nothing really to do with sustainability either...except be sure as the collapse from the tragedy of the commons happens...this sort of illegal activity destructive to the environment will escalate dramatically.
Me: "There's nothing criminal about it. Besides, even if it were, we've made the calculation and concluded that it's more profitable to move operations to places with lousy enforcement and take the small risk of a fine. This also has the added benefit of making it easier to reinforce climate change denial and lobbying: 'those environmentalists are taking yer jobs!'"


Quote:
I prefer not talking to walls. It's been explained that the carbon market IS part of a strategy, not the goal. The goal is sustainability of our economic systems and long term civilization. You refuse this obstinately. Willful ignorance and redefining terms and concepts to purposely remain ignorant is a character flaw, and something I am not interested in fixing. Go learn how to think critically and rationally on your own. I am not going to be your teacher.
You have no viable strategy to get your preferred goal state implemented then, might as well just have said so and spared me the time. You also seem to have this interesting form of lack of awareness that most of those other comments (from "I prefer not talking to walls" to "Go learn how to think critically and rationally on your own") apply to yourself more than anything.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin

Last edited by caveman1917; 3rd May 2019 at 07:44 AM.
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2019, 08:00 AM   #233
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,636
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Me: "There's nothing criminal about it. Besides, even if it were, we've made the calculation and concluded that it's more profitable to move operations to places with lousy enforcement and take the small risk of a fine. This also has the added benefit of making it easier to reinforce climate change denial and lobbying: 'those environmentalists are taking yer jobs!'Me idiot"
FTFY

Oh and BTW China has a track record of hugely excessive penalties for people caught doing this sort of criminal activity, including public humiliation and torture up to and including execution. It seriously does take a very big risk to try this sort of scam there. I can't speak to what this particular scam operators will face, but it certainly is not the sort of thing any intelligent and wise person would engage in at all. China is especially and notoriously sensitive about "saving face", and I would not want to be the Chinese criminal that embarrassed China internationally......

India not so much. They were probably thinking even if caught they might bribe someone with their profits. But again, now that it is known internationally, the criminals will likely be dealt with each according to the laws of their countries.

nothing to do with legal and legit business
nothing to do with AGW and/or AGW mitigation
nothing to do with sustainability



Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
You have no viable strategy to get your preferred goal state implemented then, might as well just have said so and spared me the time. You also seem to have this interesting form of lack of awareness that most of those other comments (from "I prefer not talking to walls" to "Go learn how to think critically and rationally on your own").
Again, you are purposely being willfully ignorant. It is not interesting to discuss. Please stop. If you prefer, go take a flying leap at a rolling orifice. i am not interested in your willful ignorance.
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management

Last edited by Red Baron Farms; 3rd May 2019 at 08:34 AM.
Red Baron Farms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2019, 09:04 AM   #234
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 6,103
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
Oh and BTW China has a track record of hugely excessive penalties for people caught doing this sort of criminal activity, including public humiliation and torture up to and including execution.
No idea how pointing out that even the place with hugely excessive penalties still has a track record of people caught doing this sort of criminal activity is a point in your favour.

Quote:
It seriously does take a very big risk to try this sort of scam there. I can't speak to what this particular scam operators will face, but it certainly is not the sort of thing any intelligent and wise person would engage in at all. China is especially and notoriously sensitive about "saving face", and I would not want to be the Chinese criminal that embarrassed China internationally......
Indeed, if even that doesn't deter such business then it makes one wonder how it goes in places like Colombia or something. Still no idea how this is a point in your favour.

Quote:
nothing to do with legal and legit business
Me: "Legit business is business which increases profit, illegitimate business is business which decreases profit. Whether legit business is legal or not depends on which option is more profitable."

Quote:
Again, you are purposely being willfully ignorant. It is not interesting to discuss. Please stop. If you prefer, go take a flying leap at a rolling orifice. i am not interested in your willful ignorance.
To sum up then:

1. You've asserted a goal state (one with a functioning carbon market) and we've assumed it to be valid (ie to mitigate global warming).

2. You've not given an argument as to why your goal state should be preferable over various other valid goal states asserted in this thread (such as population reduction to 10 million or so). In other words you've not shown that the utility of your goal state is higher than other valid goal states, you've not shown that U(Gcarbon market) > U(Gsomething else).

3. The only strategy you've given is "proposing" Gcarbon market, yet you've not shown that this strategy is the preferred one or even viable in the first place, you've not shown that p(Sproposing, Gcarbon market) > p(Ssomething else, Gcarbon market).

4. Indeed, you say that you're not interested in discussing strategy, in particular comparing p(Si, Gcarbon market) for Si from a set of available strategies.

An agent is rational if it maximizes its expected utility, in this case if it chooses the approach (define an "approach" as a pair (S, G)) which maximizes its expected utility. In other words it will choose (i, j) such that p(Si, Gj)U(Si, Gj) is maximal. Your explicit disinterest in the first (p) term as well as your failure to argue for the second (U) term makes you demonstrably irrational. Which was already pretty obvious in your attempts to use moralizing and appeals to your notions of "legitimacy" and "positive change" as means of persuasion to me playing a rational agent which has as its utility its capital growth.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin

Last edited by caveman1917; 3rd May 2019 at 09:09 AM.
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2019, 10:57 AM   #235
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,636
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
No idea how pointing out that even the place with hugely excessive penalties still has a track record of people caught doing this sort of criminal activity is a point in your favour.
It's not a point in anyone's favor. It's not a point at all. The entire thing is irrelevant. You are just babbling on about nonsense but even your irrelevant off topic nonsense is factually incorrect. Please stop. You are embarrassing yourself.



Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Indeed, if even that doesn't deter such business then it makes one wonder how it goes in places like Colombia or something. Still no idea how this is a point in your favour.
There are no points. The red herring you are focused on is irrelevant to this discussion. But if you wish to insist that there are criminals in the world, so be it. Stipulation granted. And what? In what possible way does this have any thing to do with sustainability or your wacko self proclaimed woo about AGW? Don't make me build the same sort of strawmen you keep using. If you have a point about the criminals in the scam related to sustainability, then make it.

Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Me: "Legit business is business which increases profit, illegitimate business is business which decreases profit. Whether legit business is legal or not depends on which option is more profitable."
A strawman building a strawman, and not even a very good one at that. This conversation becomes even more ludicrous!
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post


To sum up then:

1. You've asserted a goal state (one with a functioning carbon market) and we've assumed it to be valid (ie to mitigate global warming).

2. You've not given an argument as to why your goal state should be preferable over various other valid goal states asserted in this thread (such as population reduction to 10 million or so). In other words you've not shown that the utility of your goal state is higher than other valid goal states, you've not shown that U(Gcarbon market) > U(Gsomething else).

3. The only strategy you've given is "proposing" Gcarbon market, yet you've not shown that this strategy is the preferred one or even viable in the first place, you've not shown that p(Sproposing, Gcarbon market) > p(Ssomething else, Gcarbon market).

4. Indeed, you say that you're not interested in discussing strategy, in particular comparing p(Si, Gcarbon market) for Si from a set of available strategies.

An agent is rational if it maximizes its expected utility, in this case if it chooses the approach (define an "approach" as a pair (S, G)) which maximizes its expected utility. In other words it will choose (i, j) such that p(Si, Gj)U(Si, Gj) is maximal. Your explicit disinterest in the first (p) term as well as your failure to argue for the second (U) term makes you demonstrably irrational. Which was already pretty obvious in your attempts to use moralizing and appeals to your notions of "legitimacy" and "positive change" as means of persuasion to me playing a rational agent which has as its utility its capital growth.

Don't argue with a caveman, it's even more pointless than arguing with a drunk.
FTFY
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management
Red Baron Farms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:32 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.