Fact It doesn't pay to help America...

[rynnor]

I'd misread Wij's post - and was fessing up to that (the edit) as you posted this

But I'm still bemused by your "permanent" growth that isn't permanent and faith in magic happening that will keep everything going swimmingly...

I said its impossible to predict the future because of completely unknown factors so we cant really predict when the energy crash will come but until that time theres no reason you cant experience continuous growth. Beyond that everything else is pure speculation.

 

[Scouse]

OK, back from having a life, can now continue argument with ya a bit more fully Gaff

There are degrees of moral acceptance in warfare; Gulf War One was far more morally acceptable (a direct response to a hostile invasion engaged by a coalition with unanimous UN backing) than Iraq 2, (illegal war for oil based on lies about WMD). Simply saying "war is bad m'kay?" is childish.

I disagree Gaff. I think war is a symptom of (amongst other things, but ultimately) human idiocy and, by definition, and the statement that "it's bad, m'kay" is factually correct.

However, I understand the differences between different conflicts giving us differing levels of moral acceptance in todays social context.

I don't think the two ideas are mutually exclusive - they belong in different realms of thought, that's all. By that I mean if you accept the idea of war in the context of human idiocy (we're all human, living on one planet, a la the Carl Sagan video I posted) then it's easy to understand the logical conclusion that all war is bad (and in the context of systemic design you'd attempt to design out the situations that would lead humans to feel it is necessary to engage in it).

If you see it as a unfortunate, if not inevitable, evil (which, in the current geopolitical and social climate is definitely the case) then there are levels of acceptablility.

I try to look at the world through the former glass. I don't think it's childish, it's just a different world view. As education spreads I think more and more people will see it that way.

Right now I think perhaps the problem of war can only be solved through "one world government". The form that government would take would worry me, however.

No, I explicitly didn't make that mistake by pointing out there's no causal link between imperialism and capitalism and then used the examples of two empires that clearly weren't capitalist to illustrate that.

My bad. I see your point and relevance of your examples now, but I still disagree with it.

I still say there's a causal link between imperialism and capitalism - but it's not the only route or cause of imperialism.

The reason I'd say there's not a lot of examples of imperial capitalist societies is that modern capitalism is a relevantly recent construct and the US has been by far the most dominant (and therefore most militarily active - especially now that it's primary resource (oil) is growing scarce).

Maybe I'm more positive about the ability of government to influence things than you are. I would agree there are plenty of governments lying supine in front of the corporate world and taking it up the arse on a daily basis (not least HMGov), but there are also plenty of examples of governments who do regulate, and regulate well; and once again we can look at Scandinavia for the best examples of that. I'd argue people get the governments they deserve personally, but I don't think the nation state is quite dead yet.

I think on a local level (and by local I mean national) governments do a job. I think on a global level there's no way to reign in the excesses of a system that is wreaking environmental and social havok.

One world government, again? We're in desparate need of global regulation but how do you achieve that in a system where if someone does the "right thing" the others will make a short-term killing and the country that took the action neuters itself economically?

It's a system that means everybody is too damn scared to make necessary changes in the face of impending disasters - we just keep our foot to the floor when the wall is in plain sight...

Actually we are trying alternatives, we tinker and modify and adjust economic thinking all the time, but I for one would prefer to experiment without killing millions of people via collectivisation or eugenics, or some other bit of "scientific" reasoning that kills real people (and yes I know you can say capitalism is killing people anyway, but the 20th century experience suggests the "devil you know" is a better way to manage the problem than wholesale ideological experimentation).

I think the current myriad environmental disasters that capitalism has created are bigger evils than any "science" has visited on us and they will have much more significant ramifications for the continued existance of large numbers of humans on this planet.

As for eugenics/etc. - remember - it wasn't "science" that did that - it was what us idiot apes did with the knowledge that science as a system gave us - another argument for designing a system that takes us out of the equation - or rather doesn't incentivise that sort of behaviour.

I think where we agree is that all the examples of laissez faire unregulated capitalism encouraged by neocons and free marketers eventually lead to disaster.

I don't disagree with that. However, the reason for my anti-capitalist leanings is that I don't think we have a system that is able to deal with the problems mankind faces or one that is remotely close to being able to deliver the balance that we likely need.

The idea of humans being completely out of the loop terrifies me, but at the same time I can see your point. I just personally think there are a bunch of ways we can be a lot smarter and long-term in our thinking, without throwing capitalism out of the window completely.

Well, I posted a vid about that point - it was the point I was most interested in

I think humans really are stupid stupid apes. Even the most intelligent that have ever existed will have acted in ways that are contrary to the survival of the species. I think if we continue the way we are going we will be the unwitting progenitors of our own inevitable demise.

IMO a radical shift in thinking is needed to avert these problems. And to get all "what about the aliens" about it - I think these problems probably affect every single species that evolves to our level of technology.

If aliens have evolved elsewhere in the universe I reckon they've probably hit the same problems on their worlds that we've hit on ours - and, like we're doing, have come up short...



Edit: rynnor, I'll post tomorrow old bean...

 

[Gwadien]

Scouse, I really wanna see a irl photo of you and your Volkswagen campervan.

J/k, I love you<3

 

[rynnor]

I think humans really are stupid stupid apes. Even the most intelligent that have ever existed will have acted in ways that are contrary to the survival of the species. I think if we continue the way we are going we will be the unwitting progenitors of our own inevitable demise.

Is that such a bad thing? If we blow it something else will eventually get a shot at ruling the planet. No species survives forever and we have had a few million years - we will all be very long dead so why worry about it

 

[Scouse]

Is that such a bad thing? If we blow it something else will eventually get a shot at ruling the planet. No species survives forever and we have had a few million years - we will all be very long dead so why worry about it

I don't know about you, but being human myself I have some emotional attachment to my race and would like us to survive and go on to colonise space.

I also hope that this isn't the "pinnacle" of our society. If we're going to die out I would hope we would die out providing happier times for humans, rather than just safer or easier. I'd much rather mankind was happy and fulfilled and if we're not aiming for space then we may as well go back to some religious model without the technological bollocks and not have to work 50 hour weeks just to keep up with the joneses in a pressure-cooker environment.

Basically, I want lightsabres

 

[DaGaffer]

I don't know about you, but being human myself I have some emotional attachment to my race and would like us to survive and go on to colonise space.

I also hope that this isn't the "pinnacle" of our society. If we're going to die out I would hope we would die out providing happier times for humans, rather than just safer or easier. I'd much rather mankind was happy and fulfilled and if we're not aiming for space then we may as well go back to some religious model without the technological bollocks and not have to work 50 hour weeks just to keep up with the joneses in a pressure-cooker environment.

Basically, I want lightsabres

So you worry about resource limits but then say you want to go into space (which solves the problem so what are you worrying about?), and then you say war is always bad but lightsabres are good? I think you're conflicted.

NB. We'll never be happy, not without rewiring our brains. Another unfortunate side-effect of evolution; happiness doesn't put mammoth steaks on the table.

 

[Raven]

And those next door always have something you want, but they are weak, so you can just take it!

 

[rynnor]

I don't know about you, but being human myself I have some emotional attachment to my race and would like us to survive and go on to colonise space.

Why? Unless something radical happens we will still be the same bunch of irrational monkeys - space would just give us new places to exploit/wreck and god forbid we ever get FTL travel and encounter another intelligent race - talk about genocide!

 

[Scouse]

So you worry about resource limits but then say you want to go into space (which solves the problem so what are you worrying about?), and then you say war is always bad but lightsabres are good? I think you're conflicted.

NB. We'll never be happy, not without rewiring our brains. Another unfortunate side-effect of evolution; happiness doesn't put mammoth steaks on the table.

Jeebus Gaff, don't take the post so seriously. And of course I'm conflicted - I'm human

As for going into space - I don't think we'll make it. I reckon it'll all come crashing down before we do it in a way that means if the earth goes pop the colony would survive.

Can't find it but there was a really good article a few years ago in New Scientist that did the maths, and it didn't look good...

Why? Unless something radical happens we will still be the same bunch of irrational monkeys - space would just give us new places to exploit/wreck and god forbid we ever get FTL travel and encounter another intelligent race - talk about genocide!

So, I take it you don't want mankind to survive? Could you just state that for clarity please?


I do, and our chances of survival go up dramatically on colonisation of A) another planet then B) another solar system.

 

[Scouse]

Anyway, as a slightly thread-related aside - talk about hypocricy...

Allan Wells will never forget the picture of the dead child sent to his home [by the British Government], [who] had resorted to the shocking tactic as a way of encouraging athletes to join the United States-led protest over the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan..."One of the pictures I received from 10 Downing Street was of what looked like a dead young girl, face down, with an outstretched arm reaching for a doll,"...."The letter had words to the effect that this is what the Soviet army are doing in Afghanistan,"

Pot/Kettle?

 

[DaGaffer]

Jeebus Gaff, don't take the post so seriously. And of course I'm conflicted - I'm human

As for going into space - I don't think we'll make it. I reckon it'll all come crashing down before we do it in a way that means if the earth goes pop the colony would survive.

Can't find it but there was a really good article a few years ago in New Scientist that did the maths, and it didn't look good...

So, I take it you don't want mankind to survive? Could you just state that for clarity please?


I do, and our chances of survival go up dramatically on colonisation of A) another planet then B) another solar system.

Don't be so pessimistic; if Newt gets into power we're going to have a permanent Moon base in eight year's time! Apparently. Piece of piss. Of course the Earth will be on fire and we'll all be eating each other, but we'll have a Moon base.

The annoying thing is, if a proposal to fast-track a base came from anyone other than a Republican whack-a-doodle, I'd be all for it, because once you're permanently on the Moon you've done the hard part; cost per KG to anywhere else in the solar system drops by about 99%.

 

[Scouse]

Don't be so pessimistic; if Newt gets into power we're going to have a permanent Moon base in eight year's time! Apparently. Piece of piss. Of course the Earth will be on fire and we'll all be eating each other, but we'll have a Moon base.

The annoying thing is, if a proposal to fast-track a base came from anyone other than a Republican whack-a-doodle, I'd be all for it, because once you're permanently on the Moon you've done the hard part; cost per KG to anywhere else in the solar system drops by about 99%.

Aye, he's lol-o-matic (and electioneering in Florida). But even if the cost per KG to anywhere else in the solar system drops by 99% what have we got on the moon that we wouldn't have to ship there in bulk from Earth first?

Still. I'd love to see it happen

 

[Raven]

The moon will be harvested for material for ships/stations. Iron, water, silicone, ceramics. There would be little point shipping it back to earth.

 

[Wij]

Oh no. They're not offsurfacing space launches to those dirty moonians. They don't even pay earth taxes. And it isn't even cheaper when you've had to design everything for them in detail and then they charge you an extortionate rate for minor changes. Fucking short-sighted earth management.

 

[rynnor]

So, I take it you don't want mankind to survive? Could you just state that for clarity please?


I do, and our chances of survival go up dramatically on colonisation of A) another planet then B) another solar system.

As they are now? No way!

We need to mature as a species before we head off of our planet or we will simply wreck other planets.

 

[Wij]

There's nothing to wreck in the rest of our solar system and extra-solar planetary visits are so far in the future the chances of flesh and blood humans as we know them getting there are slim to none.

 

[DaGaffer]

Aye, he's lol-o-matic (and electioneering in Florida). But even if the cost per KG to anywhere else in the solar system drops by 99% what have we got on the moon that we wouldn't have to ship there in bulk from Earth first?

Still. I'd love to see it happen

Helium-2 looks like the big one, but there are all kinds of volatiles and probably metals (aluminium oxides have been detected). The big question is whether the water ice they've detected at the poles is the real deal; if it is then you've got the basis for a sustainable colony. If it isn't, well, once you're on the Moon you can always go to the asteroid belt, find ice there and crash it on to the Moon. A Moon colony wouldn't be self-sustaining for 30 years probably, but it could be eventually.

 

[rynnor]

There's nothing to wreck in the rest of our solar system and extra-solar planetary visits are so far in the future the chances of flesh and blood humans as we know them getting there are slim to none.

Thats not neccesarily true - for one thing we still arent sure if there's life on several of them (including under the frozen ice of europa) - if there is you can guarantee we will impact it negatively...

 

[Wij]

It matters not even if there is some life under the ice of Europa. Unless some monoliths can turn Jupiter into lucifer that life isn't going to evolve very far. Conditions will be too fleeting around thermal springs to sustain civilisations. The europans are a dead end!

 

[Scouse]

Thats not neccesarily true - for one thing we still arent sure if there's life on several of them (including under the frozen ice of europa) - if there is you can guarantee we will impact it negatively...

Why worry about a possible few microbes on Mars when we are actively killing half the flora and fauna on our home planet?

 

[Wij]

Probably not tasty either.

 

[rynnor]

Why worry about a possible few microbes on Mars when we are actively killing half the flora and fauna on our home planet?

Anything we find would be a uniquely evolved species - its because we are hammering our own biosphere that I'd hope not to see us going and hammering others.

 

[rynnor]

It matters not even if there is some life under the ice of Europa. Unless some monoliths can turn Jupiter into lucifer that life isn't going to evolve very far.

I think you have a mis-conception about evolution - its not a road map that inevitably leads to us. Anything that can survive on Europa would be very highly evolved - do we only place value on alien life in proportion to how much it reminds us of ourselves?

 

[Scouse]

Anything we find would be a uniquely evolved species - its because we are hammering our own biosphere that I'd hope not to see us going and hammering others.

Everything here is uniquely evolved - including us. And we've evolved to a technologically advanced level.

Leaving ourselves open to the risk of only being on one planet (that's going through a man-made extinction event) for the sake of a few microbes which have no hope of advancing on another is, IMO, illogical to the extreme.

At least if we went there we could study and learn about them whilst achieving the goal of preserving other forms of life. We'd take uniquely evolved life off our planet with us, flora, fauna etc.


What makes Mars' microbes more important than sentient lifeforms from Earth?

 

[Wij]

I think you have a mis-conception about evolution - its not a road map that inevitably leads to us. Anything that can survive on Europa would be very highly evolved - do we only place value on alien life in proportion to how much it reminds us of ourselves?

Nope. I'm quite the evolution nerd.

You're missing my point. I'm saying that I don't care about life that is dumb and small. I don't know about you but I don't worry about bacterial rights. Its not because they don't remind me of me but because there's nothing to value in them.

/edit: in and of themselves that is. I know full well that I can't survive without bacteria to process my maccy ds into poo etc...

 

[rynnor]

Everything here is uniquely evolved - including us. And we've evolved to a technologically advanced level.

We havent evolved technology - our changes are a side effect of intelligence (which was evolved) but are happening far too fast to be evolution.

What makes Mars' microbes more important than sentient lifeforms from Earth?

Thats not my point but what you are really saying is that its ok to go to mars and trash the native biosphere because we are more important/ more valuable / have a divine right - delete as applicable. Thats the attitude that trashed the earth and you want to transport it around the solar system?

 

[rynnor]

You're missing my point. I'm saying that I don't care about life that is dumb and small. I don't know about you but I don't worry about bacterial rights.

You dont have to worry about them - they are the dominant lifeform on our planet and exist in every environment no matter how harsh - but we will inevitably take them with us when we travel to other planets and from this could quite easily destroy the native biosphere.

 

[Scouse]

We havent evolved technology - our changes are a side effect of intelligence (which was evolved) but are happening far too fast to be evolution.

I never said we evolved technology. I (IMO obviously) meant we've evolved enough to be able to create the technologies we have and to consider the colonisation of space.

The microbes on mars (if there are any at all) will never be able to do that because of the conditions they are in. - are we to condemn the advanced life that has evolved in our solar system to certain doom because "oh noes! we may kill more microbes"...

Thats not my point but what you are really saying is that its ok to go to mars and trash the native biosphere because we are more valuable. Thats the attitude that trashed the earth and you want to transport it around the solar system?

Colonisation of other planets will always carry the risk of inadvertantly affecting other lifeforms. Period. There's nothing we can do about that.

I don't think deliberately condemning the life that has evolved on Earth to certain extinction because we may adversely affect other life is acceptable.

 

[rynnor]

I don't think deliberately condemning the life that has evolved on Earth to certain extinction because we may adversely affect other life is acceptable.

Deliberately? All species go extinct - some hang on longer than others (particularly in the sea) but they all go in the end and so will we - colonies on hostile worlds would be pathetically vulnerable - to seriously think this would somehow prevent us going extinct is self delusion.

 

[Scouse]

You dont have to worry about them - they are the dominant lifeform on our planet and exist in every environment no matter how harsh - but we will inevitably take them with us when we travel to other planets and from this could quite easily destroy the native biosphere.

"Dominant" by coverage or biomass, maybe (and that's a definate "maybe"), but have bacteria produced great paintings, books, music, dance, arcitechture or technologies?

When bacteria on Mars do that we should ask them if we can establish colonies alongside them.

Until that point occurs we should not feel bad colonising the planet as long as we take reasonable steps to ensure we don't wilfully tool around destroying everything willy nilly...