This speech crosses paths with many recent threads.

I'm making a new thread for this.

Is it possible to discuss without politics? Who knows. Let's find out.

 

There is no debate on this. We are all going to die.

 

Do the math:

 

Do the math:

Sobering...

 

Interesting how all that "Infallible" Math just continues to get more warped as Time goes on.
But that's impossible You say !!!
No, it's not impossible, there are simply factors that are being
completely overlooked, or dismissed off-handedly.

And No, I won't tell You what is being overlooked and dismissed, because
You would think that I'm crazy, and dismiss ME off-handedly because
You refuse to consider any reality, other than your own, to be valid.

True Expectations, Beliefs, and Fears,
are often at odds with each other,
but they ultimately are averaged-out to create what we experience as reality here.

The Goal-Posts are in constant motion.
Nature knows exactly how to keep everything in perfect balance.
It's only people with a very limited view of things that keep screaming that we're all gonna DIE.
They've been screaming this for thousands of years, poor guys.
.
.
.

 

We ARE all going to die. In a hundred years BILLIONS will be dead.

But I would wager than the doomsday prophesies will come to naught, as they always do.

Lord Kelvin calculated the age of the sun at 80 million years - he was quite certain about it, too. The energy requirements of the projected human population exceed what can be available. Oil will run out by 2020. There's a truckload of this sort of thing if you are feeling excessively optimistic and think you will benefit from being gloomier: https://extinctionclock.org/

I look around my home lit up at night - I don't really bother to switch lights off any more, as ALL the lightbulbs burning add up to 100 watts - little more than ONE lightbulb not so long ago. Oil is already being replaced as automotive fuel. Things change, but it seems to me that they just keep getting better.

 

Interesting how all that "Infallible" Math just continues to get more warped as Time goes on.
But that's impossible You say !!!
No, it's not impossible, there are simply factors that are being
completely overlooked, or dismissed off-handedly.

And No, I won't tell You what is being overlooked and dismissed, because
You would think that I'm crazy, and dismiss ME off-handedly because
You refuse to consider any reality, other than your own, to be valid.

True Expectations, Beliefs, and Fears,
are often at odds with each other,
but they ultimately are averaged-out to create what we experience as reality here.

The Goal-Posts are in constant motion.
Nature knows exactly how to keep everything in perfect balance.
It's only people with a very limited view of things that keep screaming that we're all gonna DIE.
They've been screaming this for thousands of years, poor guys.
.
.
.

With all due respect, and really not intending to be dismissive or belittling, why did you even write this post?

What does it say?

"I can't argue with the math as it stands but there are hidden variables that I will not reveal. Instead I will just assert they exist and add a few more assertions."

I find this sort of thing unfortunate. Let's assume that you are right. How does that benefit any reader? Someone pre-disposed to agree would find the "truth" they already believe; someone who doesn't agree will find no evidence for the nebulous case you are trying to make. Who are you writing for?

Assuming, again, you are right about whatever it is you are saying, don't you owe it people to lay it out in a way that at least has a chance of being evaluated and understood? If not, who is benefitting from the passionate declaiming of mysteries?

"You are wrong, and I refuse to tell you why for reasons that are your own fault" is how I, as someone who doesn't agree with your assertions is forced to read what you write. "You are just dupes of obviously bogus math and logic but I won't show you why because you can't see the truth" is insulting, actually.

Perhaps some of us have considered the ideas that you are obscuring in "self defense" and have, after actual consideration, rejected them. Maybe your special access to "truth" is not as real as you feel it is. Could that be the case? It seems immune to facts and logic because "hidden variables".

I don't know, @LowQCab, it certainly seems to me that you write these things for yourself.

Again, I reiterate that do not intend to insult, belittle, or dismiss you. I am mostly trying to point out to you how easily these posts of yours can be read as insulting and dismissive—the very things you complain are being done to you.

Is there an opportunity for introspection and growth here?

 

I find this sort of thing unfortunate. Let's assume that you are right. How does that benefit any reader? Someone pre-disposed to agree would find the "truth" they already believe; someone who doesn't agree will find no evidence for the nebulous case you are trying to make. Who are you writing for?

You are seeking enlightenment, but most seek comfort. Belief in magic is a simpler path to intellectual peace, unfortunately.

 

Ya’akov
When 10 people look at a painting, there will be 10 different interpretations of what the Artist intended.

I've never had anyone legitimately question my intentions before, it's a new experience.

I have found that when asserting my estimations of what is most likely true, "to ME"
even when couching it in all sorts of disclaimers,
that there are a few Trolls out there that will immediately fain offense,
and express total incredulity at the mere mention
of something that is not supposed "Mainstream-Knowledge", and "well everybody knows that ........".
I'm not interested in providing them with any subject-matter to yell about,
so I stay vague and non-committal on subjects that might be considered "controversial".

Many of the things that I would like to share have taken me
decades to vet, or to demonstrate the likely probability of, or to prove the utility of.
These things can't be "proven", or taught to,
any person who is not willing to consider alternate viewpoints,
and some things are far too complex to "teach" in a Forum.
I'm not here to attempt to invalidate anyone's viewpoint,
only to get them to start asking more questions.
Unfortunately, there are people who are sure they have everything figured-out,
and everybody who disagrees is an idiot,
there's not much I can do for them.

I have a really vague idea about just how much I don't know,
that's what makes me smarter than average,
that, plus hanging around with people who are smarter than me.

I am very much aware that most people are dangerously ignorant about much of Life,
and I'd like to intrigue them to find out more about it
in their own way, and in their own time, and from their own viewpoint.
I have nothing to prove, and I certainly don't want to make anyone appear "wrong".

If someone finds anything that I say or write offensive,
then they were looking for something to be offended about in the first place.
I have zero interest in offending anyone,
and I seriously can't remember the last time I felt personally offended,
maybe that makes me strange, who knows.
Sometimes people are just having a "Bad-Day",
or have a very stressful Life,
and I can't do anything about that.

Have a nice Day !!! ....... DON'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO !!!

"Question Everything" has held me in good stead for my entire Life.
.
.
.

 

Crackpots gotta crackpot.

 

Ya’akov
When 10 people look at a painting, there will be 10 different interpretations of what the Artist intended.

I've never had anyone legitimately question my intentions before, it's a new experience.

I have found that when asserting my estimations of what is most likely true, "to ME"
even when couching it in all sorts of disclaimers,
that there are a few Trolls out there that will immediately fain offense,
and express total incredulity at the mere mention
of something that is not supposed "Mainstream-Knowledge", and "well everybody knows that ........".
I'm not interested in providing them with any subject-matter to yell about,
so I stay vague and non-committal on subjects that might be considered "controversial".

Many of the things that I would like to share have taken me
decades to vet, or to demonstrate the likely probability of, or to prove the utility of.
These things can't be "proven", or taught to,
any person who is not willing to consider alternate viewpoints,
and some things are far too complex to "teach" in a Forum.
I'm not here to attempt to invalidate anyone's viewpoint,
only to get them to start asking more questions.
Unfortunately, there are people who are sure they have everything figured-out,
and everybody who disagrees is an idiot,
there's not much I can do for them.

I have a really vague idea about just how much I don't know,
that's what makes me smarter than average,
that, plus hanging around with people who are smarter than me.

I am very much aware that most people are dangerously ignorant about much of Life,
and I'd like to intrigue them to find out more about it
in their own way, and in their own time, and from their own viewpoint.
I have nothing to prove, and I certainly don't want to make anyone appear "wrong".

If someone finds anything that I say or write offensive,
then they were looking for something to be offended about in the first place.
I have zero interest in offending anyone,
and I seriously can't remember the last time I felt personally offended,
maybe that makes me strange, who knows.
Sometimes people are just having a "Bad-Day",
or have a very stressful Life,
and I can't do anything about that.

Have a nice Day !!! ....... DON'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO !!!

"Question Everything" has held me in good stead for my entire Life.
.
.
.

I am not sure what the interpretation of art has to do with this discussion. If you are suggesting the world is a work of art, subject to interpretation in the same way, then there doesn’t seem to be a reason to engage in discussions based on the exoteric.

And there seems to be the trouble. Your claims are based on the esoteric. More extremely, based on experiences internal to you. I have no problem at all with “personal truth”. The nature of personal experience, that is, how to describe what it is like to be “someone” is the most elusive problem in philosophy, and as far as science practiced to understand the world “out there”goes, it has literally nothing at all to say about it.

What you are saying is akin to someone telling you that something is emitting light of a certain wavelength, which the majority of people call “blue” and you telling them that is isn’t blue, because that’s not what the experience of blue is like.

There is no doubt whatever that others’ qualia, including the experience of what it is like to see a color, are inaccessible to us. But we can agree, statistically that the overwhelming majority of people will say that emissions around 450nm look “blue”, regardless of what it is like to see blue.

But what I am getting from you is that you want to say the equivalent of “450nm is not blue because it is not what blue is like [to me]”. In other words, in discussions that rely on correlation, on agreement of effects, you deny the correlation (which isn’t really in dispute) in order to dismiss the facts.

This is very odd for someone pursuing truth. I understand the pursuit of truth to require accounting for all the actual facts available. That is, those things that we can’t repeatedly demonstrate and that almost all observers consider correct.

We human beings have no real access to ”objectivity”. Everything we perceive reaches us through a subjective filter. What we have is a kind of simulated objectivity. In comparison with the requirements for real objectivity (omniscience, a rather high bar), it is very little—but it has been the most successful tool for improvement of the standard of living of human beings in history.

That thing is the agreement on repeatable correlations and vetting things by demonstrable predictions based on the theories we develop. While introspective exploration is an important and laudable activity, to conflate it with science in the ordinary sense is simply wrong.

I could go on, but I make that mistake often enough, and I have no desire to seem to be making a personal attack on you. I believe that you don’t intend to be insulting, but my question remains unanswered. That being the case, and your own assertion that we won’t be able to understand you because of unspoken truths we are simply too brainwashed to listen to seems at odds with that.

Since you can’t explain why things people believe are wrong (whatever the reason), and the things you say very strongly imply it is our lack of enlightenment that prevents you from doing it, who are you writing to? From here, it seems to be either preaching to the choir or “telling the truth to shame the devil”—to paraphrase Shakespeare.

If the former, the concomitant insult, whether intended or not, seems to be a pretty high price to tell the people that are “in the know” what they already believe. If the latter, well—

In any case, I this here and leave it to you to have the last word. I believe saying anything could have been a mistake. I thought about it a lot before I said anything and decided that is probably wasn’t. But, if it was, and the cost that mistake was paid by you, I am sincerely apologetic.

I have no ill will towards you, and I respect many things about you. You are a very knowledgeable and helpful member of AAC and, as far as I am concerned, a member in good standing of the “regulars” I am glad you are here with us, and as always wish you the best.

 

Interesting how all that "Infallible" Math just continues to get more warped as Time goes on.
But that's impossible You say !!!
No, it's not impossible, there are simply factors that are being
completely overlooked, or dismissed off-handedly.

And No, I won't tell You what is being overlooked and dismissed, because
You would think that I'm crazy, and dismiss ME off-handedly because
You refuse to consider any reality, other than your own, to be valid.

True Expectations, Beliefs, and Fears,
are often at odds with each other,
but they ultimately are averaged-out to create what we experience as reality here.

The Goal-Posts are in constant motion.
Nature knows exactly how to keep everything in perfect balance.
It's only people with a very limited view of things that keep screaming that we're all gonna DIE.
They've been screaming this for thousands of years, poor guys.
.
.
.

I watched the whole video you're referring to and he did discuss the several shifts (warps as you say) in the estimates, specifically of peak oil, that have happened over the years, and you're right that the estimates shifted because of factors that were overlooked. Not intentionally or offhandedly but because they were unknown at the time. Or for the sake of argument let's say they were known but dismissed offhandedly. Eventually the supply of things to (willfully or ignorantly) disregard in the calculations will be exhausted, and the calculations will finally, perhaps accidentally, be correct.

At this time we may be disregarding our own future capability for the now sci-fi concept of terraforming. In the next few decades we may find a way to make the polar ice caps and the Sahara habitable for a few more billion people. We may find a way to make diesel and gasoline from urine. We may find a way to embrace nuclear power without people shrinking in fear, or find another energy source to cut our ties to oil. But what then? Will we find a way to expand the earth itself to make room for all the new people? A way to shrink ourselves down and live in shoe boxes? Go subterranean? Whatever we do to kick the can further down the road, the fact remains that continued Perpetual growth leads to the inevitability of physically running out of room on this planet for all the people.

Or do you disagree? Can this planet sustain indefinite perpetual growth and consumption? If so, please explain how.

 

Or do you disagree? Can this planet sustain indefinite perpetual growth and consumption? If so, please explain how.

Yes, I disagree.

1) Your first incorrect assumption is unbounded population growth. This was the premise of The Population Bomb which essentially said were all going to die of overpopulation in, like, 20 years. Since then, it has become apparent that birth rates drop to dangerously low levels (below replacement levels) in prosperous, technologically advanced societies.

2) I will never doubt the continued existence of smart people -- smart people looking for problems to solve. Their activities will be periodically suppressed by the state -- many will be murdered -- but enough survive and leave us the solutions to our continued existence.

Fundamentally, those on your side see humans as a danger to ... what exactly? The only solution to this danger is some form of culling of human beings. This is evil in my mind.

I believe in life, and the potential of very few, very smart individuals to solve our existential problems as they arise.

 

Ya’akov;
Congratulations on a measured and intelligent response.
I wish I had half your restraint.

 

1) Your first incorrect assumption is unbounded population growth.

I didn't realize that I was making an assumption. Is it not established fact? Or is there something hiding behind the word unbounded that turns the data below into "gotcha on a technicality?"

This was the premise of The Population Bomb which essentially said were all going to die of overpopulation in, like, 20 years.

Never read it, but I assume this is the same objection @LowQCab raises about the many incorrect past predictions about peak oil, to which my reply is the same. Whether peak oil or peak people, when there is a finite resource (oil, real estate) and perpetual increasing rate of consumption of it, it will eventually be exhausted. This seems so self evident that I can't understand why we are debating it.

Since then, it has become apparent that birth rates drop to dangerously low levels (below replacement levels) in prosperous, technologically advanced societies.

So is your argument that soon (or maybe just eventually) all societies will be sufficiently prosperous and advanced that population will stabilize? If so, then I have trouble envisioning your optimistic outcome but I certainly hope you are right. It would be much preferred over widespread war and famine.

Fundamentally, those on your side see humans as a danger to ... what exactly? The only solution to this danger is some form of culling of human beings. This is evil in my mind.

I did not seek admittance to any exclusive club of soylent green enthusiasts and if I have been claimed by one I reject the nomination. I don't have "a side." There is math, and there is truth. I'm just pointing at it. Isn't that what this thread was supposed to be about? Perpetually increasing consumption of a finite resource results inevitably in exhausting that resource. That is the mathematical truth and it is quite obvious. It can't be evil. You almost called me evil, but not quite. So I almost feel compelled to defend myself, but not quite. How about you don't put words in my mouth? Did I say anything about culling? Personally I think the situation will work itself out organically through war and famine, preceded and followed by global hardship. But certainly it would be nice if some "smart people" would come along and make this pesky truth thing go away (for a little while, until the next time it comes up).

 

Ya’akov;
Congratulations on a measured and intelligent response.
I wish I had half your restraint.

Thanks for the compliment. But my restraint is sincere, inasmuch as it comes from an awareness of my own fallibility and trying to listen to my own advice (sometimes pretty difficult). I‘ve made plenty of my own mistakes, possibly even some of the ones I believe the honorable Mr. Cab is making.

Strengths, it turns out, are invariably accompanied by complementary weaknesses. The reverse is obviously also true. So when I see a strength I search for the concomitant weakness which I expect in proportional magnitude. We on ly call things “strengths” because we have in mind requirements, or attributes that have value to us. On the other hand, we see as weaknesses things not favorable to us.

So when I perceive a “weakness” I also recognize there is some strength that is connected with it. I like to think of this relationship as strengths casting “shadows” in which the weaknesses live. And, when I see someone who I otherwise have reason to respect, doing something that just seems not to be in their best interest, it makes me stop and think.

I want to understand why, and if after contemplation I conclude it is an error, I try to find out why that error is being made. This is as much for myself as for them, but I do think in terms of mutual benefit. So many times I have seen people fall out with each other because of politics, religion, philosophy, and things that look like these subjects.

I believe this happens because people progressively begin to see the other as an object and not a subject—that is, as something with value only in relation to themselves and not with their own, equal world and consciousness. The warning when posting here to “remember the human” is very cogent but I would take it much further than courtesy.

In the final analysis, all we have in this world is our human experience, based on an extremely fallible mind that is often resorted to only to rationalize our emotional impulses—we feel first then justify the feeling. And it’s not as if we don‘t believe what we say in defense because more often than not the temporal feeling-thinking sequence seems to us, reversed. We believe that we think something and that causes a feeling. It’s hard to get past that.

Anyway, I guess this is one of those days. I am sure this must qualify as off-topic and I beg the indulgence of the TS, or if not, I can delete it, just say the word.

Thanks, again, for recognizing my effort at measured response, thankfully it isn’t holding something back it’s a matter of refactoring my emotional reaction in light of rational examination.

 

Soylent green. I remember that movie. Charlton Heston in his usual leading role.
Back then, the year 2022 seemed far, far into the future and its apocalyptic premise somewhat feasible.
Alas, that dystopian future didn’t pan out. Thankfully.

 

Never read it, but I assume this is the same objection @LowQCab raises about the many incorrect past predictions about peak oil, to which my reply is the same. Whether peak oil or peak people, when there is a finite resource (oil, real estate) and perpetual increasing rate of consumption of it, it will eventually be exhausted. This seems so self evident that I can't understand why we are debating it.

Not accusing you of anything but every argument ad infinitum about complex systems with homeostatic tendencies, suffers from the same problem, it fails to account for the response of different parts of the system to the changes that are occurring over time.

”All things being equal” is like saying “in a perfect world”—it’s not going to happen, and it doesn’t even describe a possible thing. So, “running our of oil” isn’t going to happen, not because there is an infinite supply but because as it becomes more scarce the cost to extract it will exceed the value of having it.

Population is a little—or maybe a lot—more complex than that, though. In the case of population you have a situation where, as things stand, individuals can continue to add to the population regardless of the cost. Where oil requires industrial scale enterprise to produce, children takes just two people and sometimes not even that many.

So, certainly some of the same economic pressures and mechanisms that will ensure we will find a substitute for oil before we pump the earth dry are at play with population, but it has this extra dimension that makes it much more vexed. It is telling that education and prosperity lead to reduced family size.

Maybe the solution to overpopulation is making everyone middle class.

 

Soylent green. I remember that movie. Charlton Heston in his usual leading role.
Back then, the year 2022 seemed far, far into the future and its apocalyptic premise somewhat feasible.
Alas, that dystopian future didn’t pan out. Thankfully.

From the classic sci-fi story “Make Room! Make Room!” by Harry Harrison in 1966, and the original ”future” date was 1999.

 

OMG!
I learned a new word today: soylent.
Also, never heard of Soylent Green before. I don't watch too many movies or much TV.