On Sat, 22 Oct 2022 13:02:02 -0700, Robert Carnegie wrote:

> On Saturday, 22 October 2022 at 13:29:41 UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 4:56:08 PM UTC-6, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>> > This is part of his longer argument that we need a way to /not/ break
>> > /this/ planet, which we currently are doing, because we won't get
>> > another one.
>> If _that_ were what he was arguing, I would agree with him. However,
>> instead, I am in very strong disagreement with what he wrote at the
>> link. Because when I followed the link, what I saw was:
>>
>> Human lives aren't more important than the lives of other animals.
>
> I think he means: the universe doesn't prefer humans, and we can't
> expect it to bend the rules in our favour. See "The Cold Equations"
> applied to an entire planet.
>
>> The way to "not break this planet" is for civilization to collapse, and
>> technological progress to end.
>
> I think he means: overconsumption, unsustainable activity. He does seem
> to think that technological progress is pretty much over anyway.
>

I think he had to discount technological progress or his article falls
apart and since he is a member of the "humans are just animals no better
than any other" cult he could never think of that.

Magewolf <Magewolf@nc.rr.com> writes:
>On Sat, 22 Oct 2022 13:02:02 -0700, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, 22 October 2022 at 13:29:41 UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
>>> On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 4:56:08 PM UTC-6, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>> > This is part of his longer argument that we need a way to /not/ break
>>> > /this/ planet, which we currently are doing, because we won't get
>>> > another one.
>>> If _that_ were what he was arguing, I would agree with him. However,
>>> instead, I am in very strong disagreement with what he wrote at the
>>> link. Because when I followed the link, what I saw was:
>>>
>>> Human lives aren't more important than the lives of other animals.
>>
>> I think he means: the universe doesn't prefer humans, and we can't
>> expect it to bend the rules in our favour. See "The Cold Equations"
>> applied to an entire planet.
>>
>>> The way to "not break this planet" is for civilization to collapse, and
>>> technological progress to end.
>>
>> I think he means: overconsumption, unsustainable activity. He does seem
>> to think that technological progress is pretty much over anyway.
>>
>
>
>I think he had to discount technological progress or his article falls
>apart and since he is a member of the "humans are just animals no better
>than any other" cult he could never think of that.

He, Dr. Murphy, invents laser measurement devices for a living. I suspect
he is quite aware of technical progress; most of what we've seen since
the 1960's is not radical change, but rather refinement of
existing technology. His textbook takes a deep dive into energy and
is worth at least taking a look at (and it's open source).

So, perhaps you might want to postulate exactly what "technological
progress" you expect to ameliorate the expected consequences from
exponential growth?

Or do you expect the exponential growth to cease?

In which case, what type of society do you envision in
your technological future? A steady state economy?

https://steadystate.org/

On 10/22/2022 3:11 PM, David Johnston wrote:
> On 2022-10-21 1:11 p.m., Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> On 10/21/2022 1:17 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
>>> On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 11:24:49 AM UTC-6, Scott Lurndal
>>> quoted, in part:
>>>> Mount Everest and the
>>>> ocean floor are orders-of-magnitude more habitable than any
>>>> non-terrestrial setting in the solar system: much easier to
>>>> access and nearer to restaurants. Yet we do not see condominiums
>>>> in those locations, do we? Nor do we expect to - because it's
>>>> obviously silly, just like space colonization.
>>>
>>> What do you _gain_ by building a habitat on the ocean floor, or
>>> on top of Mount Everest?
>>>
>>> He is right that building a habitat in space is more difficult. On
>>> the other hand, once you've put a box around a space with air,
>>> at least you don't have to worry about a hurricane damaging it.
>>>
>>> But the problem with his statement isn't about his estimate of the
>>> downside. The problem is that he utterly ignores the *upside*.
>>>
>>> Build a habitat on Mars, and suddenly you have access to all the
>>> resources of Mars. That *nobody else owns*. And the biggest
>>> upside is that you're out of the reach of Russian and Chinese
>>> nuclear missiles.
>>>
>>> Plus, if a dinosaur-killer size asteroid were to hit the Earth and
>>> wipe out the whole human race there - then *afterwards* some of
>>> the space colonists could return to Earth, which indeed would still
>>> be the best-adapted place for human life, and re-populate it with
>>> their descendants, continuing the human story.
>>>
>>> If you ignore what makes space colonization worth the cost - if
>>> you think of it as not any more valuable than a real-estate
>>> development housing the same number of people - *of course*
>>> its absurd, but it's *that way of thinking about it* that is absurd.
>>>
>>> You have to know what a space colony is *for* before you can
>>> decide how much effort it is worth making to have one.
>>>
>>> John Savard
>>
>> No you don't.  Many people will go do something just because it is there.
>
> That's a reason to visit.  It isn't a reason to stay.

People will be staying in space very soon. We should have a usable
commercial space station within the next decade.

Lynn

On 2022-10-22 7:03 p.m., Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 10/22/2022 3:11 PM, David Johnston wrote:
>> On 2022-10-21 1:11 p.m., Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>> On 10/21/2022 1:17 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>> On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 11:24:49 AM UTC-6, Scott Lurndal
>>>> quoted, in part:
>>>>> Mount Everest and the
>>>>> ocean floor are orders-of-magnitude more habitable than any
>>>>> non-terrestrial setting in the solar system: much easier to
>>>>> access and nearer to restaurants. Yet we do not see condominiums
>>>>> in those locations, do we? Nor do we expect to - because it's
>>>>> obviously silly, just like space colonization.
>>>>
>>>> What do you _gain_ by building a habitat on the ocean floor, or
>>>> on top of Mount Everest?
>>>>
>>>> He is right that building a habitat in space is more difficult. On
>>>> the other hand, once you've put a box around a space with air,
>>>> at least you don't have to worry about a hurricane damaging it.
>>>>
>>>> But the problem with his statement isn't about his estimate of the
>>>> downside. The problem is that he utterly ignores the *upside*.
>>>>
>>>> Build a habitat on Mars, and suddenly you have access to all the
>>>> resources of Mars. That *nobody else owns*. And the biggest
>>>> upside is that you're out of the reach of Russian and Chinese
>>>> nuclear missiles.
>>>>
>>>> Plus, if a dinosaur-killer size asteroid were to hit the Earth and
>>>> wipe out the whole human race there - then *afterwards* some of
>>>> the space colonists could return to Earth, which indeed would still
>>>> be the best-adapted place for human life, and re-populate it with
>>>> their descendants, continuing the human story.
>>>>
>>>> If you ignore what makes space colonization worth the cost - if
>>>> you think of it as not any more valuable than a real-estate
>>>> development housing the same number of people - *of course*
>>>> its absurd, but it's *that way of thinking about it* that is absurd.
>>>>
>>>> You have to know what a space colony is *for* before you can
>>>> decide how much effort it is worth making to have one.
>>>>
>>>> John Savard
>>>
>>> No you don't.  Many people will go do something just because it is
>>> there.
>>
>> That's a reason to visit.  It isn't a reason to stay.
>
> People will be staying in space very soon.  We should have a usable
> commercial space station within the next decade.

And...what commerce would that be?

On Saturday, October 22, 2022 at 11:25:12 PM UTC+1, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Magewolf <Mage...@nc.rr.com> writes:
> >On Sat, 22 Oct 2022 13:02:02 -0700, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> >
> >> On Saturday, 22 October 2022 at 13:29:41 UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
> >>> On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 4:56:08 PM UTC-6, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> >>> > This is part of his longer argument that we need a way to /not/ break
> >>> > /this/ planet, which we currently are doing, because we won't get
> >>> > another one.
> >>> If _that_ were what he was arguing, I would agree with him. However,
> >>> instead, I am in very strong disagreement with what he wrote at the
> >>> link. Because when I followed the link, what I saw was:
> >>>
> >>> Human lives aren't more important than the lives of other animals.
> >>
> >> I think he means: the universe doesn't prefer humans, and we can't
> >> expect it to bend the rules in our favour. See "The Cold Equations"
> >> applied to an entire planet.
> >>
> >>> The way to "not break this planet" is for civilization to collapse, and
> >>> technological progress to end.
> >>
> >> I think he means: overconsumption, unsustainable activity. He does seem
> >> to think that technological progress is pretty much over anyway.
> >>
> >
> >
> >I think he had to discount technological progress or his article falls
> >apart and since he is a member of the "humans are just animals no better
> >than any other" cult he could never think of that.
> He, Dr. Murphy, invents laser measurement devices for a living. I suspect
> he is quite aware of technical progress; most of what we've seen since
> the 1960's is not radical change, but rather refinement of
> existing technology. His textbook takes a deep dive into energy and
> is worth at least taking a look at (and it's open source).
>
> So, perhaps you might want to postulate exactly what "technological
> progress" you expect to ameliorate the expected consequences from
> exponential growth?
>
> Or do you expect the exponential growth to cease?
>
> In which case, what type of society do you envision in
> your technological future? A steady state economy?
>
> https://steadystate.org/
Without concentrating on Dr Murphy in particular, I would like to point out that "I suspect that he is aware of technological change" and "I think he would spot that logical fallacy" takes for granted a problem that is of general interest. We have good reason to use advice from a variety of technical experts and specialists. Assume for the moment that we can identify highly skilled technical specialists from their qualifications and academic position. How do we know if they are giving disinterested advice? What if their personal political leanings, or the political atmosphere of their friends, colleagues, or employer is causing them to be very selective in the facts that they present? What if their poltical allegience causes them to value the change in public policy due to a rhetorical trick or exaggeration above the theoretical virtue of sticking to literal facts and logical arguments?

Machiavelli suggests "A prince, therefore, ought always to take counsel, but only when he wishes, not when others wish; on the contrary he ought to discourage absolutely attempts to advise him unless he asks it, but he ought to be a great asker, and a patient hearer of the truth about those things which he has inquired of; indeed, if he finds that any one has scruples in telling him the truth he should be angry." From the advisor's point of view he suggests "When I consider in what way this reproach or this danger may best be escaped, I find no other remedy to recommend than that in giving advice you proceed discreetly not identifying yourself in a special manner with the measure you would see carried out, but offering your opinion without heat, and supporting it temperately and modestly, so that if the prince or city follow it, they shall do so of their own good-will, and not seem to be dragged into it by your importunity. "

The UK legal/political tradition is to try to find advisors on either side of a point of view and have them put their cases, but in cases where a particular viewpoint has successfully marginalised its opponents in a particular area of expertise, perhaps with the assistance of grant funding dedicated to that point of view, this would appear to be impractical.

In article <78ebbb13-034d-4bed-bacc-c0cff7aedaa2n@googlegroups.com>,
Andrew McDowell <mcdowell_ag@sky.com> wrote:
>
>The UK legal/political tradition is to try to find advisors on
>either side of a point of view and have them put their cases, but
>in cases where a particular viewpoint has successfully
>marginalised its opponents in a particular area of expertise,
>perhaps with the assistance of grant funding dedicated to that
>point of view, this would appear to be impractical.

I for one am outraged at how little time the pro-phlogisten
spokesmen get, not to mention the complete failure of the
Boris Johnson government to consider addressing the pandemic
by burning heretics.
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

On Sunday, October 23, 2022 at 2:23:22 PM UTC+1, James Nicoll wrote:
> In article <78ebbb13-034d-4bed...@googlegroups.com>,
> Andrew McDowell <mcdow...@sky.com> wrote:
> >
> >The UK legal/political tradition is to try to find advisors on
> >either side of a point of view and have them put their cases, but
> >in cases where a particular viewpoint has successfully
> >marginalised its opponents in a particular area of expertise,
> >perhaps with the assistance of grant funding dedicated to that
> >point of view, this would appear to be impractical.
> I for one am outraged at how little time the pro-phlogisten
> spokesmen get, not to mention the complete failure of the
> Boris Johnson government to consider addressing the pandemic
> by burning heretics.
> --
> My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
> My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
> My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
> My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll
AFAIK burning heretics came under re-education rather than disease control. I do agree that when the phlogisten doctrine was consensus wisdom it would have been difficult to get a learned opinion against it. To add to your list of consensus wisdom that has fluctuated wildly I suggests the origin of covid-19 and the effectiveness of masks. A political suggestions - the consensus of the serious people was that free trade would make America rich and China democratic.

On Sun, 23 Oct 2022 06:06:35 -0700, Andrew McDowell wrote:

> On Saturday, October 22, 2022 at 11:25:12 PM UTC+1, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Magewolf <Mage...@nc.rr.com> writes:
>> >On Sat, 22 Oct 2022 13:02:02 -0700, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Saturday, 22 October 2022 at 13:29:41 UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
>> >>> On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 4:56:08 PM UTC-6, Robert Carnegie
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>> > This is part of his longer argument that we need a way to /not/
>> >>> > break /this/ planet, which we currently are doing, because we
>> >>> > won't get another one.
>> >>> If _that_ were what he was arguing, I would agree with him.
>> >>> However, instead, I am in very strong disagreement with what he
>> >>> wrote at the link. Because when I followed the link, what I saw
>> >>> was:
>> >>>
>> >>> Human lives aren't more important than the lives of other animals.
>> >>
>> >> I think he means: the universe doesn't prefer humans, and we can't
>> >> expect it to bend the rules in our favour. See "The Cold Equations"
>> >> applied to an entire planet.
>> >>
>> >>> The way to "not break this planet" is for civilization to collapse,
>> >>> and technological progress to end.
>> >>
>> >> I think he means: overconsumption, unsustainable activity. He does
>> >> seem to think that technological progress is pretty much over
>> >> anyway.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >I think he had to discount technological progress or his article falls
>> >apart and since he is a member of the "humans are just animals no
>> >better than any other" cult he could never think of that.
>> He, Dr. Murphy, invents laser measurement devices for a living. I
>> suspect he is quite aware of technical progress; most of what we've
>> seen since the 1960's is not radical change, but rather refinement of
>> existing technology. His textbook takes a deep dive into energy and is
>> worth at least taking a look at (and it's open source).
>>
>> So, perhaps you might want to postulate exactly what "technological
>> progress" you expect to ameliorate the expected consequences from
>> exponential growth?
>>
>> Or do you expect the exponential growth to cease?
>>
>> In which case, what type of society do you envision in your
>> technological future? A steady state economy?
>>
>> https://steadystate.org/
> Without concentrating on Dr Murphy in particular, I would like to point
> out that "I suspect that he is aware of technological change" and "I
> think he would spot that logical fallacy" takes for granted a problem
> that is of general interest. We have good reason to use advice from a
> variety of technical experts and specialists. Assume for the moment that
> we can identify highly skilled technical specialists from their
> qualifications and academic position. How do we know if they are giving
> disinterested advice? What if their personal political leanings, or the
> political atmosphere of their friends, colleagues, or employer is
> causing them to be very selective in the facts that they present? What
> if their poltical allegience causes them to value the change in public
> policy due to a rhetorical trick or exaggeration above the theoretical
> virtue of sticking to literal facts and logical arguments?
>
> Machiavelli suggests "A prince, therefore, ought always to take
> counsel, but only when he wishes, not when others wish; on the contrary
> he ought to discourage absolutely attempts to advise him unless he asks
> it, but he ought to be a great asker, and a patient hearer of the truth
> about those things which he has inquired of; indeed, if he finds that
> any one has scruples in telling him the truth he should be angry." From
> the advisor's point of view he suggests "When I consider in what way
> this reproach or this danger may best be escaped, I find no other remedy
> to recommend than that in giving advice you proceed discreetly not
> identifying yourself in a special manner with the measure you would see
> carried out, but offering your opinion without heat, and supporting it
> temperately and modestly, so that if the prince or city follow it, they
> shall do so of their own good-will, and not seem to be dragged into it
> by your importunity. "
>
> The UK legal/political tradition is to try to find advisors on either
> side of a point of view and have them put their cases, but in cases
> where a particular viewpoint has successfully marginalised its opponents
> in a particular area of expertise, perhaps with the assistance of grant
> funding dedicated to that point of view, this would appear to be
> impractical.

I think it is easy to see from the first few arguments he puts forth and
the cult talk that he has a tiny hobbyhorse to ride.

On Saturday, October 22, 2022 at 2:02:05 PM UTC-6, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On Saturday, 22 October 2022 at 13:29:41 UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:

> > Human lives aren't more important than the lives of
> > other animals.

> I think he means: the universe doesn't prefer
> humans, and we can't expect it to bend the rules
> in our favour. See "The Cold Equations" applied
> to an entire planet.

That, of course, is true. But it is not what he wrote,
and not interpreting what people write to mean what
the words, arranged in that order, mean, was a mistake
when done in the case of "Four and a Half Years of
Struggle Against Lies, Stupidity and Cowardice", and so
it is a mistake I have no desire to repeat, even if this
author's intents aren't quite as consciously malicious.

Humanity does need to mend its ways to survive. The
hope of colonizing other planets _can_, under some
circumstances, serve as a distraction from that. That is
*also* something I agree with, because it is true.

Since we can build nuclear power plants, however, we
have a way to mend our ways _and_ avoid a great deal
of the unpleasant consequences of mending our ways
in the fashion that some people would prefer - consequences
that have *prevented* serious political action aimed *at*
mending our ways.

Because _of course_ you would need to reach an impossible
bar of convincing voters that WE'RE ALL DOOMED
before they would support the massive cuts in living
standards that the green vision of the future would mean.
Without nuclear, the only result is to stampede people into
voting for nuts like Trump, and letting the oil barons get
rich during their lifetimes, before things all collapse.

I'm in favor of surviving. Nuclear power is a plan of survival
that can actually work. Irrational nuclear-phobia is a problem,
but unlike the unwillilngness to undergo vast decreases in
prosperity, it seems like one that could actually be solved.

John Savard

On Saturday, October 22, 2022 at 2:10:55 PM UTC-6, David Johnston wrote:

> No. You aren't. If the technology exists to send 10,000 people to Mars
> then the technology exists to send a nuclear warhead to Mars.

That is true. However, since I don't expect the technology to send 10,000
people to Mars from Earth with a trip time of *15 minutes* to be developed
any time soon, I was factoring other things than simply delivering the
payload into the conditions for an effective weapons system.

If Russia could only deliver its nuclear warheads to the United States in
*wooden sailing ships*, I don't think they would pose a particularly
serious threat, at least not of the same kind that ICBMs and submarine-based
missiles do. Of course, if they feigned friendship, and covertly delivered those
warheads to domestic terrorists, for example, then they could still cause
damage with them.

John Savard