The transhumanist fallacy

TubbaBlubba · 30th April 2012, 10:29 AM

This is a fallacy I'm encountering increasingly, in particular from libertarians who think we should do nothing about global warming, because "science will solve it."

Okay, people, science has solved all sorts of improbable problems. We as humans have put people on the moon, we have obscenely powerful computers, we have built nuclear bombs, and so on.

This does NOT imply that for whatever problem for humanity you can think up, science will solve it in a meaningful time-frame (for example, we may all be dead by then, or it may come after milennia of suffering). This doesn't mean that you can keep subsidizing or quasi-subsidizing oil. Science will NOT solve it just because it has solved difficult problems in the past.

Why do so many people think this? Is it just that convenient to not have to think about problems in society? Do they seriously believe that if they just want something to happen badly enough, scientists will magically fix it? It's just the old "God wouldn't let that happen" routine in new clothes.

AvalonXQ · 30th April 2012, 10:42 AM

What's so unreasonable about noting that, historically, environmental and logistical problems have been obviated by technological solutions?

It seems like straightforward inductive reasoning to assert that, just as present technology has solved past environmental problems, so future technology will solve our present problems.

ThunderChunky · 30th April 2012, 10:51 AM

Global warming is obviously a problem on a scale like no other. Technology will provide alternative energy sources to fossil fuels, but there is not much in the pipeline as far as removing CO2 from the atmosphere. But maybe we will all have robot bodies by then and it wont matter.

Beerina · 30th April 2012, 10:52 AM

Fair enough. However you should be viscerally aware of two things:

1. Hideous, awful problems have been loudly predicted by physical scientists in he past, but the economic theories that science, which is to say driven by business interests, has indeed solved the issues is the actual state of affairs.

Running to government regulation would have been the wrong thing to do as it would muck this up, slowing it down or causing its abandonment in favor of government controls and rationing.

2. There is no shortage of politicians ready to seize and wield that power, "Of course it will turn out all right."

Anyone claiming AGW, and therefore massive control of the economy, is warranted, should be slapped by any rational skeptic given the poor results of that compared to letting capitalism, which is to say , economic freedom, loose to solve the problem.

In the 200 years it will take for seas to rise, people will qdapt and pop out the other end richer, healthier, and with better quality lives than they will with a crushed, government-controlled economy.

Evidence? Hundreds of century-long economic experiments involving billions of test subjects.

More evidence? Many predictions of Julian Simon's largely uncontroversial theories that came true in direct opposition to physical scientists' predictions of shortages.

After seeing the results of one such 10 year bet, Isaac Asimov, a gloom-and-doomer, was intellectually honest enough to admit he was wrong. He said he didn't understand it, but that he was wrong.

Mark6 · 30th April 2012, 10:54 AM

AvalonXQ:

The unreasonable part is that the same people who claim "future science will solve today's problems" all too often resist actual if imperfect solutions today. Not all of them of course, but it is a noticeable phenomenon.

TubbaBlubba:

While I see your point, I do not understand the thread's title. What does transhumanism have to do with it? I do not see much overlap between transhumanists and libertarians, and none at all between transhumanists and AGW deniers.

ponderingturtle · 30th April 2012, 10:56 AM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

What's so unreasonable about noting that, historically, environmental and logistical problems have been obviated by technological solutions?

Except of course when it hasn't been. You can point to civilizations that seem to have collapsed for those reasons as well.

Beerina · 30th April 2012, 10:59 AM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Except of course when it hasn't been. You can point to civilizations that seem to have collapsed for those reasons as well.

Point to one that has collapsed because of economic freedom, where free people weren't forbidden by people with guns, swords, or clubs from making their lives better.

I can point to innumerble ones that have collapsed due to overbearing governments and a lack of it, including many collapsing around you at the moment.

Mark6 · 30th April 2012, 11:01 AM

Originally Posted by Beerina

After seeing the results of one such 10 year bet, Isaac Asimov, a gloom-and-doomer, was intellectually honest enough to admit he was wrong. He said he didn't ubderstand it, but that he was wrong.

In a curious inverse, after lifetime of being free-market supporter I see countries with government-directed industrial policy like Germany and Denmark handling recession better and adopting new technology faster than US. I do not understand it, but admit I was wrong. Or, as Fareed Zakaria about this very phenomenon: "It does not make sense in theory, but it makes sense in practice".

In fact, over last 10-15 years I see reverse of left and right economic stances. Through 20th Century economic left clung to socialist ideology, while economic right wingers were willing to try whatever works. Nowadays it is other way around -- "market will solve the problems!" is the repeated mantra even when it does not, while left wingers are quite willing to experiment.

TubbaBlubba · 30th April 2012, 11:01 AM

Originally Posted by Mark6

While I see your point, I do not understand the thread's title. What does transhumanism have to do with it? I do not see much overlap between transhumanists and libertarians, and none at all between transhumanists and AGW deniers.

I was thinking of the similarities in unreasonable projections of scientific progress.

TubbaBlubba · 30th April 2012, 11:03 AM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

What's so unreasonable about noting that, historically, environmental and logistical problems have been obviated by technological solutions?

It seems like straightforward inductive reasoning to assert that, just as present technology has solved past environmental problems, so future technology will solve our present problems.

Present technologies have not solved ALL the problems of the past, just alleviated many of them.

I am not saying that there will absolutely not be any scientific solutions that will automatically fix AGW, I'm saying we CANNOT count on it.

TubbaBlubba · 30th April 2012, 11:05 AM

Originally Posted by Beerina

Anyone claiming AGW, and therefore massive control of the economy, is warranted, should be slapped by any rational skeptic given the poor results of that compared to letting capitalism, which is to say , economic freedom, loose to solve the problem.

Except things that may generate profit, which is what companies strive to do, may in the long run cause problems for other people.

Like, you know, the combustion engine. Great thing. Except for the exhaust fumes. Do companies using those donate to anti-AGW charities that plant trees, or what?

Mark6 · 30th April 2012, 11:15 AM

Originally Posted by Beerina

Point to one that has collapsed because of economic freedom, where free people weren't forbidden by people with guns, swords, or clubs from making their lives better.

Name a society "where free people weren't forbidden by people with guns, swords, or clubs from making their lives better".

19th Century US does not really count because it had an entire largely untouched continent to exploit. It is not terribly difficult to make lives better when you have huge untapped natural resources. Life in Qatar and UAE today is a lot better than 50 years ago, despite governments which are pretty overbearing. For an example of society without much overbearing government but no such escape clause, look at 19th Century England. Everyone was free to do pretty much what they wanted as long as they did not break criminal laws, and there were far fewer laws on the books than today. Taxes were very low by today's standards, and there were no "government regulations" as such.

It was also a hellhole.

epepke · 30th April 2012, 11:15 AM

I don't think you're really paying attention to the conservative on this one. They don't think science will solve it. They think god will, if he wants to, except that he probably wants it just like this.

OCaptain · 30th April 2012, 11:18 AM

Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba

This is a fallacy I'm encountering increasingly, in particular from libertarians who think we should do nothing about global warming, because "science will solve it."

Okay, people, science has solved all sorts of improbable problems. We as humans have put people on the moon, we have obscenely powerful computers, we have built nuclear bombs, and so on.

This does NOT imply that for whatever problem for humanity you can think up, science will solve it in a meaningful time-frame (for example, we may all be dead by then, or it may come after milennia of suffering). This doesn't mean that you can keep subsidizing or quasi-subsidizing oil. Science will NOT solve it just because it has solved difficult problems in the past.

Why do so many people think this? Is it just that convenient to not have to think about problems in society? Do they seriously believe that if they just want something to happen badly enough, scientists will magically fix it? It's just the old "God wouldn't let that happen" routine in new clothes.

I think you're conflating transhumanism and a general optimism in the capability of smart people to use technology to solve big problems. I would posit that the awareness of transhumanism is not widespread at all. In other words, I don't think a Joe on the street poll would yield many people who know what transhumanism is.

Certainly you do, though.

TubbaBlubba · 30th April 2012, 11:27 AM

I edited the thread title. Can we please stop discussing that, now?

AvalonXQ · 30th April 2012, 11:37 AM

Originally Posted by Mark6

I do not see much overlap between transhumanists and libertarians, and none at all between transhumanists and AGW deniers.

*raises hand* Transhumanist and AGW skeptic here.

ThunderChunky · 30th April 2012, 12:40 PM

Originally Posted by Beerina

Fair enough. However you should be viscerally aware of two things:

1. Hideous, awful problems have been loudly predicted by physical scientists in he past, but the economic theories that science, which is to say driven by business interests, has indeed solved the issues is the actual state of affairs.

Running to government regulation would have been the wrong thing to do as it would muck this up, slowing it down or causing its abandonment in favor of government controls and rationing.

2. There is no shortage of politicians ready to seize and wield that power, "Of course it will turn out all right."

Anyone claiming AGW, and therefore massive control of the economy, is warranted, should be slapped by any rational skeptic given the poor results of that compared to letting capitalism, which is to say , economic freedom, loose to solve the problem.

In the 200 years it will take for seas to rise, people will qdapt and pop out the other end richer, healthier, and with better quality lives than they will with a crushed, government-controlled economy.

Evidence? Hundreds of century-long economic experiments involving billions of test subjects.

More evidence? Many predictions of Julian Simon's largely uncontroversial theories that came true in direct opposition to physical scientists' predictions of shortages.

After seeing the results of one such 10 year bet, Isaac Asimov, a gloom-and-doomer, was intellectually honest enough to admit he was wrong. He said he didn't understand it, but that he was wrong.

The free market has not solved major environmental problems, at least not without government intervention. Global warming is the biggest environmental problem ever.

Most basic science is also funded by the government, again not free market.

BravesFan · 30th April 2012, 12:55 PM

Why is global warming a bad thing? Won't it increase global bio-diversity by creating larger tropical,sub-tropical and temperate zones? I though bio-diversity was a good thing?

It appear to me ,the biggest problem from global warming is the inconveniences it will cause to coastal areas over time. people will have to relocate as sea levels rise. (if it turns out to be as bad as speculated)

I'm not an AGW denier by any means, I am a bit skeptical,however, of the doom and gloom predictions made about the repercussions of it. I understand that it's best to discuss things in "absolute worst" terms so as to attempt to give a sufficient timeline for preparedness. But some of it seems a bit "chicken little" to me.

That being said, what can we really do about it? Fossil fuels are a reality , and even if ten years from now they come out with the new hydrogen cars and they are great. It will still be another 5-8 years before they could reasonably be expected to overtake the gas burning cars on the road(if not longer) . But that's only here in the USA. How long would it take for replacement technology to work it's way into the third world and places like China and India?

Not saying we shouldn't be trying to find and and all new sources for energy,but it will probably take too long to do much about what's coming.

Mark6 · 30th April 2012, 12:59 PM

Originally Posted by BravesFan

That being said, what can we really do about it? Fossil fuels are a reality , and even if ten years from now they come out with the new hydrogen cars and they are great. It will still be another 5-8 years before they could reasonably be expected to overtake the gas burning cars on the road(if not longer) . But that's only here in the USA. How long would it take for replacement technology to work it's way into the third world and places like China and India?

Actually, "third world and places like China and India" often skip the steps first world took decades ago, and go straight to the latest technology. Most of Africa by now has cell phone coverage, but no land lines (and probably never will). And China invested more in solar energy than the rest of the world put together.

phunk · 30th April 2012, 01:02 PM

Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba

This is a fallacy I'm encountering increasingly, in particular from libertarians who think we should do nothing about global warming, because "science will solve it."

That's just laziness. When they say "science will solve it" they mean "we don't like the solutions science has so far because they will impact our way of life, so we hope they'll solve it another way".

big-E · 30th April 2012, 01:05 PM

It's pretty trivial to imagine a plausible (however unlikely) problem that science could not solve, in any reasonable way and appropriate timeframe - e.g. a large asteroid moving rapidly on a collision course with Earth with sufficient energy to wipe us out. I think someone wrote a book about it...

Given that problems like this can be described, there must be a point on the spectrum of problems at which "solvable" becomes "unsolvable". Why is it considered axiomatic (by some) that global warming belongs on the "solvable" side of this point?

Just because a boxer has beaten every opponent thus far it's not a guarantee that he will beat the next challenger, who may be stronger than the ones that came before him... isn't it a bit of a black swan type fallacy to claim that since we haven't yet encountered a threat we can't defeat with science and technology, we never will?

TubbaBlubba · 30th April 2012, 01:08 PM

Originally Posted by big-E

It's pretty trivial to imagine a plausible (however unlikely) problem that science could not solve, in any reasonable way and appropriate timeframe - e.g. a large asteroid moving rapidly on a collision course with Earth with sufficient energy to wipe us out. I think someone wrote a book about it...

Given that problems like this can be described, there must be a point on the spectrum of problems at which "solvable" becomes "unsolvable". Why is it considered axiomatic (by some) that global warming belongs on the "solvable" side of this point?

Just because a boxer has beaten every opponent thus far it's not a guarantee that he will beat the next challenger, who may be stronger than the ones that came before him... isn't it a bit of a black swan type fallacy to claim that since we haven't yet encountered a threat we can't defeat with science and technology, we never will?

As phunk alludes to, it's not so much that they don't think we have a solution YET, they just don't like the current solutions.

I think that technological advancements will be instrumental in hindering AGW, but I don't think we can count on them to do the job for us, I believe it is our duty to do a lot of the gritty "carbon cutting" that the world will hopefully see, soon enough.

phunk · 30th April 2012, 01:08 PM

Originally Posted by BravesFan

Why is global warming a bad thing? Won't it increase global bio-diversity by creating larger tropical,sub-tropical and temperate zones? I though bio-diversity was a good thing?

It appear to me ,the biggest problem from global warming is the inconveniences it will cause to coastal areas over time. people will have to relocate as sea levels rise. (if it turns out to be as bad as speculated)

Hundreds of millions of people having to relocate may not be the biggest problem. Increasing energy in the atmosphere increases the magnitude of weather phenomena. Storms will be more destructive and more frequent as temperatures rise.

BravesFan · 30th April 2012, 01:09 PM

Originally Posted by Mark6

Actually, "third world and places like China and India" often skip the steps first world took decades ago, and go straight to the latest technology. Most of Africa by now has cell phone coverage, but no land lines (and probably never will). And China invested more in solar energy than the rest of the world put together.

I understand that, but how long would it be after the technology was created at a reasonably priced level of the west before it took over as the main form of transportation in the east and Africa...etc?

phunk · 30th April 2012, 01:13 PM

Originally Posted by big-E

It's pretty trivial to imagine a plausible (however unlikely) problem that science could not solve, in any reasonable way and appropriate timeframe - e.g. a large asteroid moving rapidly on a collision course with Earth with sufficient energy to wipe us out. I think someone wrote a book about it...

Given that problems like this can be described, there must be a point on the spectrum of problems at which "solvable" becomes "unsolvable". Why is it considered axiomatic (by some) that global warming belongs on the "solvable" side of this point?

You can say the same thing except replace "spectrum" with "timeline", and you may see why it's important to not wait for the future to fix problems. There are a great many problems that become less solvable over time. For example, the ability to deflect an asteroid is proportional to the time you have before it gets here, so the time to start looking for them is now. If one is going to hit us in 50 years, we're much better off knowing today than 49 years from now. And with global warming, the damage is cumulative over time, the longer you ignore it the harder it gets to solve.

Mojo · 30th April 2012, 01:16 PM

Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba

This is a fallacy I'm encountering increasingly, in particular from libertarians who think we should do nothing about global warming, because "science will solve it."

Science has solved it. They just don't like the solution.

Merton · 30th April 2012, 01:33 PM

Originally Posted by BravesFan

Why is global warming a bad thing? Won't it increase global bio-diversity by creating larger tropical,sub-tropical and temperate zones? I though bio-diversity was a good thing?

I've never heard anyone claim that GW will increase biodiversity. In fact, it's just the opposite. Our oceans are heating and, as they do, they lose dissolved gases like O₂ and CO₂ to the atmosphere. Plants in the ocean still need that CO₂ for photosynthesis, so we're harming the base of the food web. Phytoplankton can't grow as quickly in these warmer temperatures, which means even less O₂ production. And on top of that, the CO₂ that cannot stay dissolved in the ocean goes back to the atmosphere, increasing the global temperature even further.

BravesFan · 30th April 2012, 01:37 PM

Originally Posted by Merton

I've never heard anyone claim that GW will increase biodiversity. In fact, it's just the opposite. Our oceans are heating and, as they do, they lose dissolved gases like O₂ and CO₂ to the atmosphere. Plants in the ocean still need that CO₂ for photosynthesis, so we're harming the base of the food web. Phytoplankton can't grow as quickly in these warmer temperatures, which means even less O₂ production. And on top of that, the CO₂ that cannot stay dissolved in the ocean goes back to the atmosphere, increasing the global temperature even further.

Hmmmm, this seems to fly in the face of the prior science which stated that global biodiversity was at it's apex between the Cambrian Explosion and the Permian-Triassic Extinction and that was a much warmer climate than we have now.

Mark6 · 30th April 2012, 01:48 PM

GW decreases biodiversity in the short term, as species go extinct (much) faster than new ones evolve. In the long term yes, warmer Earth is more biologically diverse Earth.

Which reminds me of something. As enviornmentalists will not let you forget, cutting down tropical rain destroys untold number of insect species which often have tiny ranges -- just a few square miles or a few dozen square miles. What is never mentioned is: A species with such tiny range can last only for a brief time -- few decades, or at best centuries. With or without human inervention, this patch of forest will suffer some calamity soon enough, and this endemic species of ants or beetles will be gone. The fact these endemic species exist at all means they evolved very recently -- and new insect species evolve all the time, at least in rainforest. When logging stops and forest comes back, new species arise in place of ones that went extinct.

Merton · 30th April 2012, 01:58 PM

Originally Posted by BravesFan

Hmmmm, this seems to fly in the face of the prior science which stated that global biodiversity was at it's apex between the Cambrian Explosion and the Permian-Triassic Extinction and that was a much warmer climate than we have now.

You also have to take into account the rate of change and other factors needed for organisms to live in certain areas (Did the prey move? Did any protected coverage move? etc.) That and we have a lot of areas today that are fished or polluted due to human action.

I've read that stable temperatures are good for biodiversity, not necessarily warm ones, and I think that has to do with the rate of change: if the temperature is too erratic, species can't adapt in time and will die off.

Humes fork · 30th April 2012, 02:09 PM

Originally Posted by Mark6

While I see your point, I do not understand the thread's title. What does transhumanism have to do with it? I do not see much overlap between transhumanists and libertarians, and none at all between transhumanists and AGW deniers.

There is a certain brand of techno-libertarianism around that combines the two. Look up Peter Thiel.

I mostly associate transhumanism with the singularity, and when I hear the word "singularity", I want to throw up.

As for the OP, I think there can be a valid conversation about how we should respond to global warming.

sol invictus · 30th April 2012, 02:19 PM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

What's so unreasonable about noting that, historically, environmental and logistical problems have been obviated by technological solutions?

It seems like straightforward inductive reasoning to assert that, just as present technology has solved past environmental problems, so future technology will solve our present problems.

While I haven't thought about it in any detail, it seems to me that this puts the cart before the horse. Technology develops in unexpected and surprising ways. Sometimes, it's useful for solving a pre-existing problem. But I don't know of that many examples where there was a serious, pressing problem, people thought hard, and the result was some new invention or technology that solved the problem. Do you?

To have a few examples to think about, fission power helped solve the problem of energy production. But certainly no one could have predicted that, and nuclear fission didn't come about because there was a pressing problem of energy production and this was the solution. And since fission is imperfect there's still a problem, and people have been working hard on fusion power. 60 years or more later, that's a failure.

Some Easter Islander chopped down the very last tree on the island. That left them with a major problem: they could no longer build fishing boats. A tech solution could have solved that problem, but that isn't what happened. Instead, nearly all of them starved to death.

Tsukasa Buddha · 30th April 2012, 02:40 PM

I've thought about starting a thread on this topic myself. I'm not sure where people get the idea that technology has such a grand track record.

Quote:

The second chapter, "The Great Experiment", continues the examination of Stone age progress by looking at the advancements in hunting. Wright uses the term "progress trap" to refer to innovations that create new problems for which the society is unable or unwilling to solve, or inadvertently create conditions that are worse than what existed before the innovation. For example, innovations in hunting during the Stone Age allowed for more successful hunts and consequently more free time during which culture and art were created (e.g. cave paintings, bone carvings, etc.), but also led to extinctions, most notably of megafauna. As smaller and smaller game were hunted to replace larger extinct animals, the hunts became less successful and culture declined. With agriculture, and subsequently civilisations, independently arising in multiple regions at about the same time, ~10,000 years ago, indicates to Wright that "given certain broad conditions, human societies everywhere will move towards greater size, complexity and environmental demand". The chapter title refers to the human experience which Wright sees as a large experiment testing what conditions are required for a human civilisation to succeed.
In the third chapter, "Fools' Paradise", the rise and fall of two civilisations are examined: Easter Island and Sumer. Both flourished, but collapsed as a result of resource depletion; both were able to visually see their land being eroded but were unwilling to reform. On Easter Island logging, in order to erect statues and build boats, destroyed their ecosystem and led to wars over the last planks of wood on the island. In Sumer, a large irrigation system, as well as over-grazing, land clearing, and lime-burning led to desertification and soil salination.

Linky.

I've heard a lot of ideology on this topic, but I just don't see the evidence to support it.

phunk · 30th April 2012, 03:00 PM

Originally Posted by BravesFan

Hmmmm, this seems to fly in the face of the prior science which stated that global biodiversity was at it's apex between the Cambrian Explosion and the Permian-Triassic Extinction and that was a much warmer climate than we have now.

Maybe, but there were other differences besides temperature. For example, oxygen levels were higher then.

TubbaBlubba · 30th April 2012, 03:09 PM

Originally Posted by sol invictus

While I haven't thought about it in any detail, it seems to me that this puts the cart before the horse. Technology develops in unexpected and surprising ways. Sometimes, it's useful for solving a pre-existing problem. But I don't know of that many examples where there was a serious, pressing problem, people thought hard, and the result was some new invention or technology that solved the problem. Do you?

See, that's what gets me. The fact that science has solved difficult problems does not in any way imply that science will solve any difficult problem you can possibly think of.

TubbaBlubba · 30th April 2012, 03:10 PM

Originally Posted by Humes fork

As for the OP, I think there can be a valid conversation about how we should respond to global warming.

Oh, absolutely, and that's a discussion that's mostly over my head. But it is simply not responsible to sit down and wait for scientists to fix all of our problems.

CapelDodger · 30th April 2012, 03:21 PM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

What's so unreasonable about noting that, historically, environmental and logistical problems have been obviated by technological solutions?

One should also note that you're considering societies which have survived their problems, and it's not yet been proven that they'll all overcome the next lot. One should also consider that the problem precedes the solution and has to be lived with until it's sorted, so prevention (or avoidance) is preferable to a hoped-for cure.

Quote:

It seems like straightforward inductive reasoning to assert that, just as present technology has solved past environmental problems, so future technology will solve our present problems.

No doubt the Maya had similar thoughts.

ben m · 30th April 2012, 03:26 PM

Science didn't solve the problem of dumping mercury into lakes and rivers. There was no "dump whatever you want, our genetically-engineered bacteria will mop it up." Instead, governments had to force industry to stop dumping mercury. Science didn't solve the problem of ozone-layer degradation---there was no "Use all the CFCs you want, our ozone-injecting zeppelin will clean it up". Instead, governments had to force people to stop using the harmful chemicals.

The answer to "spotted owls are going extinct" turned out to be "stop cutting down their habitat". The answer to "the cod fishery has collapsed" turned out to be "stop extracting so much cod". The answer to "salmon don't spawn in dammed rivers" turns out to be "don't dam the rivers". In other words, the solution to environmental-degradation problems has often been curtail the activity that caused the degradation. The scientific answer to "how to we stop global warming" appears to be "curtail the carbon-emissions that are causing global warming, you idiot".

Kwalish Kid · 30th April 2012, 03:27 PM

Originally Posted by Beerina

Anyone claiming AGW, and therefore massive control of the economy, is warranted, should be slapped by any rational skeptic given the poor results of that compared to letting capitalism, which is to say , economic freedom, loose to solve the problem.

In the 200 years it will take for seas to rise, people will qdapt and pop out the other end richer, healthier, and with better quality lives than they will with a crushed, government-controlled economy.

Pretty much every solution that capitalism has offered, and continues to offer, is to move the problem to another region of the world, to offload labour problems to people in other countries.

If that isn't possible, then it isn't likely that capitalism can do much.

CapelDodger · 30th April 2012, 03:31 PM

Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba

Oh, absolutely, and that's a discussion that's mostly over my head. But it is simply not responsible to sit down and wait for scientists to fix all of our problems.

It's strikes me as an almost mystical expectation, not greatly different from "the priests will get the gods to stop doing this to us". The main difference is that the gods-smitten expected to make some sacrifices in the process, while the modern assumption is that we we're just entitled.

30th April 2012, 10:29 AM	#1
TubbaBlubba Knave of the Dudes Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Communist Kingdom of Sweden Posts: 7,394	The "Science will solve it" fallacy This is a fallacy I'm encountering increasingly, in particular from libertarians who think we should do nothing about global warming, because "science will solve it." Okay, people, science has solved all sorts of improbable problems. We as humans have put people on the moon, we have obscenely powerful computers, we have built nuclear bombs, and so on. This does NOT imply that for whatever problem for humanity you can think up, science will solve it in a meaningful time-frame (for example, we may all be dead by then, or it may come after milennia of suffering). This doesn't mean that you can keep subsidizing or quasi-subsidizing oil. Science will NOT solve it just because it has solved difficult problems in the past. Why do so many people think this? Is it just that convenient to not have to think about problems in society? Do they seriously believe that if they just want something to happen badly enough, scientists will magically fix it? It's just the old "God wouldn't let that happen" routine in new clothes.
	__________________ Disagreement begets progress. Last edited by TubbaBlubba; 30th April 2012 at 11:27 AM.

30th April 2012, 10:42 AM	#2
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	What's so unreasonable about noting that, historically, environmental and logistical problems have been obviated by technological solutions? It seems like straightforward inductive reasoning to assert that, just as present technology has solved past environmental problems, so future technology will solve our present problems.
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853

30th April 2012, 10:51 AM	#3
ThunderChunky Muse Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 981	Global warming is obviously a problem on a scale like no other. Technology will provide alternative energy sources to fossil fuels, but there is not much in the pipeline as far as removing CO2 from the atmosphere. But maybe we will all have robot bodies by then and it wont matter.
ThunderChunky Muse Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 981

30th April 2012, 10:52 AM	#4
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 23,835	Fair enough. However you should be viscerally aware of two things: 1. Hideous, awful problems have been loudly predicted by physical scientists in he past, but the economic theories that science, which is to say driven by business interests, has indeed solved the issues is the actual state of affairs. Running to government regulation would have been the wrong thing to do as it would muck this up, slowing it down or causing its abandonment in favor of government controls and rationing. 2. There is no shortage of politicians ready to seize and wield that power, "Of course it will turn out all right." Anyone claiming AGW, and therefore massive control of the economy, is warranted, should be slapped by any rational skeptic given the poor results of that compared to letting capitalism, which is to say , economic freedom, loose to solve the problem. In the 200 years it will take for seas to rise, people will qdapt and pop out the other end richer, healthier, and with better quality lives than they will with a crushed, government-controlled economy. Evidence? Hundreds of century-long economic experiments involving billions of test subjects. More evidence? Many predictions of Julian Simon's largely uncontroversial theories that came true in direct opposition to physical scientists' predictions of shortages. After seeing the results of one such 10 year bet, Isaac Asimov, a gloom-and-doomer, was intellectually honest enough to admit he was wrong. He said he didn't understand it, but that he was wrong.
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right? Last edited by Beerina; 30th April 2012 at 10:56 AM.

30th April 2012, 10:54 AM	#5
Mark6 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 4,171	AvalonXQ: The unreasonable part is that the same people who claim "future science will solve today's problems" all too often resist actual if imperfect solutions today. Not all of them of course, but it is a noticeable phenomenon. TubbaBlubba: While I see your point, I do not understand the thread's title. What does transhumanism have to do with it? I do not see much overlap between transhumanists and libertarians, and none at all between transhumanists and AGW deniers.
Mark6 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 4,171	__________________ Gamemaster: "A horde of rotting zombies is shambling toward you. The sign over the door says 'Accounting'"

30th April 2012, 10:56 AM	#6
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,417	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ What's so unreasonable about noting that, historically, environmental and logistical problems have been obviated by technological solutions? Except of course when it hasn't been. You can point to civilizations that seem to have collapsed for those reasons as well.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

30th April 2012, 10:59 AM	#7
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 23,835	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle Except of course when it hasn't been. You can point to civilizations that seem to have collapsed for those reasons as well. Point to one that has collapsed because of economic freedom, where free people weren't forbidden by people with guns, swords, or clubs from making their lives better. I can point to innumerble ones that have collapsed due to overbearing governments and a lack of it, including many collapsing around you at the moment.
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right? Last edited by Beerina; 30th April 2012 at 11:02 AM.

30th April 2012, 11:01 AM	#8
Mark6 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 4,171	Originally Posted by Beerina After seeing the results of one such 10 year bet, Isaac Asimov, a gloom-and-doomer, was intellectually honest enough to admit he was wrong. He said he didn't ubderstand it, but that he was wrong. In a curious inverse, after lifetime of being free-market supporter I see countries with government-directed industrial policy like Germany and Denmark handling recession better and adopting new technology faster than US. I do not understand it, but admit I was wrong. Or, as Fareed Zakaria about this very phenomenon: "It does not make sense in theory, but it makes sense in practice". In fact, over last 10-15 years I see reverse of left and right economic stances. Through 20th Century economic left clung to socialist ideology, while economic right wingers were willing to try whatever works. Nowadays it is other way around -- "market will solve the problems!" is the repeated mantra even when it does not, while left wingers are quite willing to experiment.
Mark6 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 4,171	__________________ Gamemaster: "A horde of rotting zombies is shambling toward you. The sign over the door says 'Accounting'"

30th April 2012, 11:01 AM	#9
TubbaBlubba Knave of the Dudes Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Communist Kingdom of Sweden Posts: 7,394	Originally Posted by Mark6 While I see your point, I do not understand the thread's title. What does transhumanism have to do with it? I do not see much overlap between transhumanists and libertarians, and none at all between transhumanists and AGW deniers. I was thinking of the similarities in unreasonable projections of scientific progress.
	__________________ Disagreement begets progress.

30th April 2012, 11:03 AM	#10
TubbaBlubba Knave of the Dudes Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Communist Kingdom of Sweden Posts: 7,394	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ What's so unreasonable about noting that, historically, environmental and logistical problems have been obviated by technological solutions? It seems like straightforward inductive reasoning to assert that, just as present technology has solved past environmental problems, so future technology will solve our present problems. Present technologies have not solved ALL the problems of the past, just alleviated many of them. I am not saying that there will absolutely not be any scientific solutions that will automatically fix AGW, I'm saying we CANNOT count on it.
	__________________ Disagreement begets progress.

30th April 2012, 11:05 AM	#11
TubbaBlubba Knave of the Dudes Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Communist Kingdom of Sweden Posts: 7,394	Originally Posted by Beerina Anyone claiming AGW, and therefore massive control of the economy, is warranted, should be slapped by any rational skeptic given the poor results of that compared to letting capitalism, which is to say , economic freedom, loose to solve the problem. Except things that may generate profit, which is what companies strive to do, may in the long run cause problems for other people. Like, you know, the combustion engine. Great thing. Except for the exhaust fumes. Do companies using those donate to anti-AGW charities that plant trees, or what?
	__________________ Disagreement begets progress.

30th April 2012, 11:15 AM	#12
Mark6 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 4,171	Originally Posted by Beerina Point to one that has collapsed because of economic freedom, where free people weren't forbidden by people with guns, swords, or clubs from making their lives better. Name a society "where free people weren't forbidden by people with guns, swords, or clubs from making their lives better". 19th Century US does not really count because it had an entire largely untouched continent to exploit. It is not terribly difficult to make lives better when you have huge untapped natural resources. Life in Qatar and UAE today is a lot better than 50 years ago, despite governments which are pretty overbearing. For an example of society without much overbearing government but no such escape clause, look at 19th Century England. Everyone was free to do pretty much what they wanted as long as they did not break criminal laws, and there were far fewer laws on the books than today. Taxes were very low by today's standards, and there were no "government regulations" as such. It was also a hellhole.
Mark6 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 4,171	__________________ Gamemaster: "A horde of rotting zombies is shambling toward you. The sign over the door says 'Accounting'"

30th April 2012, 11:15 AM	#13
epepke Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 7,950	I don't think you're really paying attention to the conservative on this one. They don't think science will solve it. They think god will, if he wants to, except that he probably wants it just like this.
epepke Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 7,950	__________________ "It probably came from a sticky dark planet far, far away." - Godzilla versus Hedora "There's no evidence that the 9-11 attacks (whoever did them) were deliberately attacking civilians. On the contrary the targets appear to have been chosen as military." -DavidByron

30th April 2012, 11:18 AM	#14
OCaptain Muse Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 917	Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba This is a fallacy I'm encountering increasingly, in particular from libertarians who think we should do nothing about global warming, because "science will solve it." Okay, people, science has solved all sorts of improbable problems. We as humans have put people on the moon, we have obscenely powerful computers, we have built nuclear bombs, and so on. This does NOT imply that for whatever problem for humanity you can think up, science will solve it in a meaningful time-frame (for example, we may all be dead by then, or it may come after milennia of suffering). This doesn't mean that you can keep subsidizing or quasi-subsidizing oil. Science will NOT solve it just because it has solved difficult problems in the past. Why do so many people think this? Is it just that convenient to not have to think about problems in society? Do they seriously believe that if they just want something to happen badly enough, scientists will magically fix it? It's just the old "God wouldn't let that happen" routine in new clothes. I think you're conflating transhumanism and a general optimism in the capability of smart people to use technology to solve big problems. I would posit that the awareness of transhumanism is not widespread at all. In other words, I don't think a Joe on the street poll would yield many people who know what transhumanism is. Certainly you do, though.
OCaptain Muse Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 917

30th April 2012, 11:27 AM	#15
TubbaBlubba Knave of the Dudes Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Communist Kingdom of Sweden Posts: 7,394	I edited the thread title. Can we please stop discussing that, now?
	__________________ Disagreement begets progress.

30th April 2012, 11:37 AM	#16
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	Originally Posted by Mark6 I do not see much overlap between transhumanists and libertarians, and none at all between transhumanists and AGW deniers. raises hand Transhumanist and AGW skeptic here.
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853

30th April 2012, 12:40 PM	#17
ThunderChunky Muse Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 981	Originally Posted by Beerina Fair enough. However you should be viscerally aware of two things: 1. Hideous, awful problems have been loudly predicted by physical scientists in he past, but the economic theories that science, which is to say driven by business interests, has indeed solved the issues is the actual state of affairs. Running to government regulation would have been the wrong thing to do as it would muck this up, slowing it down or causing its abandonment in favor of government controls and rationing. 2. There is no shortage of politicians ready to seize and wield that power, "Of course it will turn out all right." Anyone claiming AGW, and therefore massive control of the economy, is warranted, should be slapped by any rational skeptic given the poor results of that compared to letting capitalism, which is to say , economic freedom, loose to solve the problem. In the 200 years it will take for seas to rise, people will qdapt and pop out the other end richer, healthier, and with better quality lives than they will with a crushed, government-controlled economy. Evidence? Hundreds of century-long economic experiments involving billions of test subjects. More evidence? Many predictions of Julian Simon's largely uncontroversial theories that came true in direct opposition to physical scientists' predictions of shortages. After seeing the results of one such 10 year bet, Isaac Asimov, a gloom-and-doomer, was intellectually honest enough to admit he was wrong. He said he didn't understand it, but that he was wrong. The free market has not solved major environmental problems, at least not without government intervention. Global warming is the biggest environmental problem ever. Most basic science is also funded by the government, again not free market.
ThunderChunky Muse Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 981	Last edited by ThunderChunky; 30th April 2012 at 12:42 PM.

30th April 2012, 12:55 PM	#18
BravesFan Banned Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: Ocean Springs, Ms Posts: 1,784	Why is global warming a bad thing? Won't it increase global bio-diversity by creating larger tropical,sub-tropical and temperate zones? I though bio-diversity was a good thing? It appear to me ,the biggest problem from global warming is the inconveniences it will cause to coastal areas over time. people will have to relocate as sea levels rise. (if it turns out to be as bad as speculated) I'm not an AGW denier by any means, I am a bit skeptical,however, of the doom and gloom predictions made about the repercussions of it. I understand that it's best to discuss things in "absolute worst" terms so as to attempt to give a sufficient timeline for preparedness. But some of it seems a bit "chicken little" to me. That being said, what can we really do about it? Fossil fuels are a reality , and even if ten years from now they come out with the new hydrogen cars and they are great. It will still be another 5-8 years before they could reasonably be expected to overtake the gas burning cars on the road(if not longer) . But that's only here in the USA. How long would it take for replacement technology to work it's way into the third world and places like China and India? Not saying we shouldn't be trying to find and and all new sources for energy,but it will probably take too long to do much about what's coming.

30th April 2012, 12:59 PM	#19
Mark6 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 4,171	Originally Posted by BravesFan That being said, what can we really do about it? Fossil fuels are a reality , and even if ten years from now they come out with the new hydrogen cars and they are great. It will still be another 5-8 years before they could reasonably be expected to overtake the gas burning cars on the road(if not longer) . But that's only here in the USA. How long would it take for replacement technology to work it's way into the third world and places like China and India? Actually, "third world and places like China and India" often skip the steps first world took decades ago, and go straight to the latest technology. Most of Africa by now has cell phone coverage, but no land lines (and probably never will). And China invested more in solar energy than the rest of the world put together.
Mark6 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 4,171	__________________ Gamemaster: "A horde of rotting zombies is shambling toward you. The sign over the door says 'Accounting'"

30th April 2012, 01:02 PM	#20
phunk Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 1,908	Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba This is a fallacy I'm encountering increasingly, in particular from libertarians who think we should do nothing about global warming, because "science will solve it." That's just laziness. When they say "science will solve it" they mean "we don't like the solutions science has so far because they will impact our way of life, so we hope they'll solve it another way".
phunk Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 1,908

30th April 2012, 01:05 PM	#21
big-E Scholar Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 115	It's pretty trivial to imagine a plausible (however unlikely) problem that science could not solve, in any reasonable way and appropriate timeframe - e.g. a large asteroid moving rapidly on a collision course with Earth with sufficient energy to wipe us out. I think someone wrote a book about it... Given that problems like this can be described, there must be a point on the spectrum of problems at which "solvable" becomes "unsolvable". Why is it considered axiomatic (by some) that global warming belongs on the "solvable" side of this point? Just because a boxer has beaten every opponent thus far it's not a guarantee that he will beat the next challenger, who may be stronger than the ones that came before him... isn't it a bit of a black swan type fallacy to claim that since we haven't yet encountered a threat we can't defeat with science and technology, we never will?
big-E Scholar Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 115

30th April 2012, 01:08 PM	#22
TubbaBlubba Knave of the Dudes Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Communist Kingdom of Sweden Posts: 7,394	Originally Posted by big-E It's pretty trivial to imagine a plausible (however unlikely) problem that science could not solve, in any reasonable way and appropriate timeframe - e.g. a large asteroid moving rapidly on a collision course with Earth with sufficient energy to wipe us out. I think someone wrote a book about it... Given that problems like this can be described, there must be a point on the spectrum of problems at which "solvable" becomes "unsolvable". Why is it considered axiomatic (by some) that global warming belongs on the "solvable" side of this point? Just because a boxer has beaten every opponent thus far it's not a guarantee that he will beat the next challenger, who may be stronger than the ones that came before him... isn't it a bit of a black swan type fallacy to claim that since we haven't yet encountered a threat we can't defeat with science and technology, we never will? As phunk alludes to, it's not so much that they don't think we have a solution YET, they just don't like the current solutions. I think that technological advancements will be instrumental in hindering AGW, but I don't think we can count on them to do the job for us, I believe it is our duty to do a lot of the gritty "carbon cutting" that the world will hopefully see, soon enough.
	__________________ Disagreement begets progress.

30th April 2012, 01:08 PM	#23
phunk Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 1,908	Originally Posted by BravesFan Why is global warming a bad thing? Won't it increase global bio-diversity by creating larger tropical,sub-tropical and temperate zones? I though bio-diversity was a good thing? It appear to me ,the biggest problem from global warming is the inconveniences it will cause to coastal areas over time. people will have to relocate as sea levels rise. (if it turns out to be as bad as speculated) Hundreds of millions of people having to relocate may not be the biggest problem. Increasing energy in the atmosphere increases the magnitude of weather phenomena. Storms will be more destructive and more frequent as temperatures rise.
phunk Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 1,908

30th April 2012, 01:09 PM	#24
BravesFan Banned Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: Ocean Springs, Ms Posts: 1,784	Originally Posted by Mark6 Actually, "third world and places like China and India" often skip the steps first world took decades ago, and go straight to the latest technology. Most of Africa by now has cell phone coverage, but no land lines (and probably never will). And China invested more in solar energy than the rest of the world put together. I understand that, but how long would it be after the technology was created at a reasonably priced level of the west before it took over as the main form of transportation in the east and Africa...etc?

30th April 2012, 01:13 PM	#25
phunk Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 1,908	Originally Posted by big-E It's pretty trivial to imagine a plausible (however unlikely) problem that science could not solve, in any reasonable way and appropriate timeframe - e.g. a large asteroid moving rapidly on a collision course with Earth with sufficient energy to wipe us out. I think someone wrote a book about it... Given that problems like this can be described, there must be a point on the spectrum of problems at which "solvable" becomes "unsolvable". Why is it considered axiomatic (by some) that global warming belongs on the "solvable" side of this point? You can say the same thing except replace "spectrum" with "timeline", and you may see why it's important to not wait for the future to fix problems. There are a great many problems that become less solvable over time. For example, the ability to deflect an asteroid is proportional to the time you have before it gets here, so the time to start looking for them is now. If one is going to hit us in 50 years, we're much better off knowing today than 49 years from now. And with global warming, the damage is cumulative over time, the longer you ignore it the harder it gets to solve.
phunk Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 1,908	Last edited by phunk; 30th April 2012 at 01:15 PM.

30th April 2012, 01:16 PM	#26
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 22,066	Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba This is a fallacy I'm encountering increasingly, in particular from libertarians who think we should do nothing about global warming, because "science will solve it." Science has solved it. They just don't like the solution.
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

30th April 2012, 01:33 PM	#27
Merton Muse Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Montana, USA Posts: 576	Originally Posted by BravesFan Why is global warming a bad thing? Won't it increase global bio-diversity by creating larger tropical,sub-tropical and temperate zones? I though bio-diversity was a good thing? I've never heard anyone claim that GW will increase biodiversity. In fact, it's just the opposite. Our oceans are heating and, as they do, they lose dissolved gases like O₂ and CO₂ to the atmosphere. Plants in the ocean still need that CO₂ for photosynthesis, so we're harming the base of the food web. Phytoplankton can't grow as quickly in these warmer temperatures, which means even less O₂ production. And on top of that, the CO₂ that cannot stay dissolved in the ocean goes back to the atmosphere, increasing the global temperature even further.

30th April 2012, 01:37 PM	#28
BravesFan Banned Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: Ocean Springs, Ms Posts: 1,784	Originally Posted by Merton I've never heard anyone claim that GW will increase biodiversity. In fact, it's just the opposite. Our oceans are heating and, as they do, they lose dissolved gases like O₂ and CO₂ to the atmosphere. Plants in the ocean still need that CO₂ for photosynthesis, so we're harming the base of the food web. Phytoplankton can't grow as quickly in these warmer temperatures, which means even less O₂ production. And on top of that, the CO₂ that cannot stay dissolved in the ocean goes back to the atmosphere, increasing the global temperature even further. Hmmmm, this seems to fly in the face of the prior science which stated that global biodiversity was at it's apex between the Cambrian Explosion and the Permian-Triassic Extinction and that was a much warmer climate than we have now.

30th April 2012, 01:48 PM	#29
Mark6 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 4,171	GW decreases biodiversity in the short term, as species go extinct (much) faster than new ones evolve. In the long term yes, warmer Earth is more biologically diverse Earth. Which reminds me of something. As enviornmentalists will not let you forget, cutting down tropical rain destroys untold number of insect species which often have tiny ranges -- just a few square miles or a few dozen square miles. What is never mentioned is: A species with such tiny range can last only for a brief time -- few decades, or at best centuries. With or without human inervention, this patch of forest will suffer some calamity soon enough, and this endemic species of ants or beetles will be gone. The fact these endemic species exist at all means they evolved very recently -- and new insect species evolve all the time, at least in rainforest. When logging stops and forest comes back, new species arise in place of ones that went extinct.
Mark6 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 4,171	__________________ Gamemaster: "A horde of rotting zombies is shambling toward you. The sign over the door says 'Accounting'"

30th April 2012, 01:58 PM	#30
Merton Muse Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Montana, USA Posts: 576	Originally Posted by BravesFan Hmmmm, this seems to fly in the face of the prior science which stated that global biodiversity was at it's apex between the Cambrian Explosion and the Permian-Triassic Extinction and that was a much warmer climate than we have now. You also have to take into account the rate of change and other factors needed for organisms to live in certain areas (Did the prey move? Did any protected coverage move? etc.) That and we have a lot of areas today that are fished or polluted due to human action. I've read that stable temperatures are good for biodiversity, not necessarily warm ones, and I think that has to do with the rate of change: if the temperature is too erratic, species can't adapt in time and will die off.

30th April 2012, 02:09 PM	#31
Humes fork Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Sweden Posts: 2,342	Originally Posted by Mark6 While I see your point, I do not understand the thread's title. What does transhumanism have to do with it? I do not see much overlap between transhumanists and libertarians, and none at all between transhumanists and AGW deniers. There is a certain brand of techno-libertarianism around that combines the two. Look up Peter Thiel. I mostly associate transhumanism with the singularity, and when I hear the word "singularity", I want to throw up. As for the OP, I think there can be a valid conversation about how we should respond to global warming.
	__________________ "Faith is the surrender of the mind; it’s the surrender of reason, it’s the surrender of the only thing that makes us different from other mammals. It’s our need to believe, and to surrender our skepticism and our reason, our yearning to discard that and put all our trust or faith in someone or something, that is the sinister thing to me. Of all the supposed virtues, faith must be the most overrated." - Christopher Hitchens

30th April 2012, 02:19 PM	#32
sol invictus Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Nova Roma Posts: 8,417	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ What's so unreasonable about noting that, historically, environmental and logistical problems have been obviated by technological solutions? It seems like straightforward inductive reasoning to assert that, just as present technology has solved past environmental problems, so future technology will solve our present problems. While I haven't thought about it in any detail, it seems to me that this puts the cart before the horse. Technology develops in unexpected and surprising ways. Sometimes, it's useful for solving a pre-existing problem. But I don't know of that many examples where there was a serious, pressing problem, people thought hard, and the result was some new invention or technology that solved the problem. Do you? To have a few examples to think about, fission power helped solve the problem of energy production. But certainly no one could have predicted that, and nuclear fission didn't come about because there was a pressing problem of energy production and this was the solution. And since fission is imperfect there's still a problem, and people have been working hard on fusion power. 60 years or more later, that's a failure. Some Easter Islander chopped down the very last tree on the island. That left them with a major problem: they could no longer build fishing boats. A tech solution could have solved that problem, but that isn't what happened. Instead, nearly all of them starved to death.

30th April 2012, 02:40 PM	#33
Tsukasa Buddha Other (please write in) Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: NeverLand Posts: 9,879	I've thought about starting a thread on this topic myself. I'm not sure where people get the idea that technology has such a grand track record. Quote: The second chapter, "The Great Experiment", continues the examination of Stone age progress by looking at the advancements in hunting. Wright uses the term "progress trap" to refer to innovations that create new problems for which the society is unable or unwilling to solve, or inadvertently create conditions that are worse than what existed before the innovation. For example, innovations in hunting during the Stone Age allowed for more successful hunts and consequently more free time during which culture and art were created (e.g. cave paintings, bone carvings, etc.), but also led to extinctions, most notably of megafauna. As smaller and smaller game were hunted to replace larger extinct animals, the hunts became less successful and culture declined. With agriculture, and subsequently civilisations, independently arising in multiple regions at about the same time, ~10,000 years ago, indicates to Wright that "given certain broad conditions, human societies everywhere will move towards greater size, complexity and environmental demand". The chapter title refers to the human experience which Wright sees as a large experiment testing what conditions are required for a human civilisation to succeed. In the third chapter, "Fools' Paradise", the rise and fall of two civilisations are examined: Easter Island and Sumer. Both flourished, but collapsed as a result of resource depletion; both were able to visually see their land being eroded but were unwilling to reform. On Easter Island logging, in order to erect statues and build boats, destroyed their ecosystem and led to wars over the last planks of wood on the island. In Sumer, a large irrigation system, as well as over-grazing, land clearing, and lime-burning led to desertification and soil salination. Linky. I've heard a lot of ideology on this topic, but I just don't see the evidence to support it.
	__________________ As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn

30th April 2012, 03:00 PM	#34
phunk Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 1,908	Originally Posted by BravesFan Hmmmm, this seems to fly in the face of the prior science which stated that global biodiversity was at it's apex between the Cambrian Explosion and the Permian-Triassic Extinction and that was a much warmer climate than we have now. Maybe, but there were other differences besides temperature. For example, oxygen levels were higher then.
phunk Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 1,908

30th April 2012, 03:09 PM	#35
TubbaBlubba Knave of the Dudes Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Communist Kingdom of Sweden Posts: 7,394	Originally Posted by sol invictus While I haven't thought about it in any detail, it seems to me that this puts the cart before the horse. Technology develops in unexpected and surprising ways. Sometimes, it's useful for solving a pre-existing problem. But I don't know of that many examples where there was a serious, pressing problem, people thought hard, and the result was some new invention or technology that solved the problem. Do you? See, that's what gets me. The fact that science has solved difficult problems does not in any way imply that science will solve any difficult problem you can possibly think of.
	__________________ Disagreement begets progress.