THE AGE OF STUPID

Hehe. I too believe that global warming is not the catastrophe that the popular imagination has imagined (though it does contain the potential to have highly undesireable affects), but one ought to separate that from the objective phenomena of global warming and its causes. Often, an event's validity and the public's reaction and panicking imagination are two very different things.

It seems most of the skeptics on the board are disgusted by the latter, but fail to conceptually separate that rejection from the former.
 
Thats a great post swbluto. I may steal that.

I'll quote it here again to make sure everyone reads it

swbluto wrote

Hehe. I too believe that global warming is not the catastrophe that the popular imagination has imagined (though it does contain the potential to have highly undesireable affects), but one ought to separate that from the objective phenomena of global warming and its causes. Often, an event's validity and the public's reaction and panicking imagination are two very different things.

It seems most of the skeptics on the board are disgusted by the latter, but fail to conceptually separate that rejection from the former.


I feel there's too much dramatised media coverage, the great unwashed masses all getting hyped either for or against throwing silly hyperbole around.

The truth is going to be somewhere in the middle.
 
Gregory said:
The truth is going to be somewhere in the middle.

It's a nice thought and sometimes works in dealing with personal disputes where there has been a misunderstandings on both sides, but some things are either right or wrong and there is no inbetween. AGW theory is one of those, I'm afraid. The only middle ground I would concede is that we do need to make our living environments less stressful to ourselves and be more appreciative of nature - the two run hand in hand because on a collective level we are part of nature, not above it. It's only as an individual that we are capable of transcending nature.

Ironically, AGW in its ideas makes this more difficult despite its superficial adherence to those aims. By penalising carbon energy to make other forms more competitive financially, it has the effect of stifling research and motivation which would make other forms of energy more efficient. Handicap races don't help competitors strive for equality when they can rely upon a handicap to bridge the difference. Why do research to improve something, when the playing field is being tilted in your favour?

Then there is the nature aspect. AGW is an arrogant theory, which ignores the incredible intelligence inherent in nature, one that exceeds our own by many multiples of ten to an almost infinite point. On another forum I posted the following, which I think relates. It concerns itself initially with the words of an Australian politician, Joe Hockey, who said, basically, even if one doesn't know whether AGW is true, one should "give the planet the benefit of the doubt", and in so doing, act as if it is true. On the surface that idea sounds attractive, but ...


Giving the planet the benefit of the doubt is to favour the well proven and observable natural cycle of cooling and warming. It also would involve taking into consideration the planet's incredible ability to balance itself to maintain and further life. Hockey is not giving the planet the benefit of the doubt, he is giving the arrogance of man and his limited and presumptuous thinking the benefit.

On several levels his statement is ill-conceived. The planet has absorbed the most incredible shocks, and it seems, each of the shocks have only added to the complexity and diversity of life on earth. Rather than being daunted by what is thrown at it, the planet has used whatever has come its way to further its handiwork.

It's brilliance has been so great it does not seem unreasonable to conclude that, whatever came along - whether meteorite, asteroid, solar flare or whatever else the universe is throwing around - the intelligence inherent on earth seemed to anticipate it all in advance or was at least able to adapt in a unique and intelligent way to whatever end it has in mind, even if one considers life itself as that end.

Only the arrogant and foolish would overlook the possibility that everything that Man does on a collective level, the planet has already accounted for and nothing which is occurring is something outside the range of its normal ability to hold in balance.

I'm more than willing to give the planet the benefit of doubt, I'll show it reverence and awe. In any person's little garden resides more intelligence and creativity than all of human science, engineering, mathematics, literature and art combined, spanning the totality of Man's short history.

The last thing I would give the benefit of doubt to above the planet's proven long record of providing this Garden of Eden floating in what appears to be a lifeless universe is a half baked hypothesis in a field of science in its infancy. Some in the field are humble and honest enough to acknowledge the rudimentary level of the field's understanding. All the rest are simply arrogant and oppressive men attempting to impose their limited understanding on what is around them.

Hockey's words are that of a sentimental fool, nice enough bloke and all that, but ignorant and arrogant in a profounder sense nonetheless.
 
Canis Lupus said:
AGW is an arrogant theory, which ignores the incredible intelligence inherent in nature, one that exceeds our own by many multiples of ten to an almost infinite point.
This is new to me. What intelligence are we talking about here?
 
Malcolm said:
No. I see self-replicating patterns and feedback loops that have a certain degree of resilience.

Can you give me an example of intelligence?

You.

Another one which is just as interesting to consider is the strategies of many species to survive, even those without an apparent brain. Take a flower, for instance, which uses a strategy of allurement with reward, contamination of the insect, a bee, covering it in pollen, to take it to another plant for reproduction. This is a very elaborate strategy given the reliance on another species and using visual display to assist, suggesting the plant has some knowledge of the bee's perspective. Yet, the plant doesn't have a mind, not one that science can identify anyway. So, where did the idea come from for the strategy to exist and come into existence?

We should know from our experience, watching ourselves closely when we create something, that first there must be an idea - something intangible which can only be seen by the mind's eye. Nature too must work this way, uses an idea in an intangible form, then somehow puts into effect. We are the product of nature ourselves. It seems reasonable to conclude, given that we are, that our thought processes reflect nature's. Understand your own intelligence and you also understand nature's.

Self replicating patterns do not have the ability to evolve and change, nor do they provide any explanation as to how a pattern (ie. something which has order) comes into existence in the first place.

One need not confine oneself to the planet, because it also seems there are wider systems at work enabling the sustainability of life on earth. The moon and sun are obvious. Then further out is Jupiter, acting like a giant vacuum cleaner to enable a relatively stable environment on earth, free from devastating impacts. You might consider, like creationists do, that the system was brought into order for the earth's purpose or, unlike creationists, that the earth or nature adapted itself to the system around it. For example, regardless of the moon's intricate relationship to the earth and the patterns it causes, even without the moon, life would have evolved on earth by the process of adaption to whatever the situation was without the moon. Either way, it doesn't matter in the context of the issue of discerning intelligence at work. Both ideas rely upon an abundance of evidence of intelligence, which is not ours and is of far greater complexity and capacity.
 
Miles said:
Canis Lupus said:
Nature too must work this way, uses an idea in an intangible form, then somehow puts into effect.
You seem to have a very unorthodox take on evolutionary theory. Still stuck with Plato?

As Emerson wrote, all western philosophy is but a footnote to Plato. Trying to understand the ultimate philosopher is not an activity which I would describe as "stuck", although it does present challenges because of its formidable nature. Never confuse gadgetry with progress. That is a very modern mistake. The same superficiality which most universities suffer from when introducing their students to Plato in philosophy 101. Once you get past the modern idea that we are more advanced because of technology, there is no reason not to consider that the ancients, particularly the Greeks, may have had greater knowledge of vital things than our modern selves.

Here, I tried to explain this with youtube video I made which deals with Euclidean geometry, the study of which Plato thought a necessity for any person wishing to understand truth. The video could just as easily have been called "the metaphysical two way street" to explain how Euclidean geometry can help us move from the physical to the metaphysical and back again. Euclid was a Platonist, and his constructions are a reflection of Plato's theories, which Plato himself didn't regard as a theory, but a reality. Euclid provides a proof, and a tool for, Plato's theory of forms.

[youtube]r7pDk2pTTBs[/youtube]
 
Artistotle 1
Plato 0
 
Canis Lupus said:
Once you get past the modern idea that we are more advanced because of technology, there is no reason not to consider that the ancients, particularly the Greeks, may have had greater knowledge of vital things than our modern selves.
I wouldn't disagree with that.

You seem to be ascribing an intentionality to Nature - that may be right or wrong but it's certainly not a commonly held belief these days...
 
Miles said:
Canis Lupus said:
Once you get past the modern idea that we are more advanced because of technology, there is no reason not to consider that the ancients, particularly the Greeks, may have had greater knowledge of vital things than our modern selves.
I wouldn't disagree with that.

You seem to be ascribing an intentionality to Nature - that may be right or wrong but it's certainly not a commonly held belief these days...

For sure. But nothing I see in science's progress and discoveries leads me away from Plato. In fact, the more deeply one delves into physics and its theories on matter, the more vindication of Plato I see, especially in his fundamental contention that truth or knowledgre is not be discerned in sensory perception, that being an illusion. You'd have to conclude on that particular point: Plato 1, Aristotle 0.
 
A few days ago the BBC screened a film called "The secret life of chaos" which explores the intimate relationship between chaos and complexity. Google <secret life of chaos torrent> if you can't access BBC iplayer. Well worth watching IMHO. Although the presenter, at one point, also falls into the trap of confusing natural laws with those governing human society. For example, whilst the immediate cause of the earthquake in Haiti was natural the reason so many people were killed and injured was solely due to the fact that the place was so underdeveloped. We have the ability to build structures which can withstand the most violent of earthquakes and the aid effort is hampered by the contemporary culture of risk aversion.

As for "The Age Of Stupid" now that really is an insult to intelligence. Who's idea was it to get the devil's own lawyer to present it?? :roll: :D
 
flip_normal said:
Although the presenter, at one point, also falls into the trap of confusing natural laws with those governing human society.

Refer to Oswald Spengler, the early 20th century German philosopher-historian to see why this idea has merit and may not be the trap you believe it is.

Conceived before the First World War is Oswald Spengler's magisterial work, Der Untergang des Abendlandes (Munich, 1918). Read in this country chiefly in the brilliantly faithful translation by Charles Francis Atkinson, The Decline of the West (New York, two volumes, 1926-28), Spengler's morphology of history was the great intellectual achievement of our century. Whatever our opinion of his methods or conclusions, we cannot deny that he was the Copernicus of historionomy. All subsequent writings on the philosophy of history may fairly be described as criticism of the Decline of the West.

Spengler, having formulated a universal history, undertook an analysis of the forces operating in the immediately contemporary world. This he set forth in a masterly work, Die Jahre der Entscheidung, of which only the first volume could be published in Germany (Munich, 1933) and translated into English (The Hour of Decision, New York, 1934). One had only to read this brilliant work, with its lucid analysis of forces that even acute observers did not perceive until 25 or 30 years later, and with its prevision that subsequent events have now shown to have been absolutely correct, to recognize that its author was one of the great political and philosophical minds of the West. One should remember, however, that the amazing accuracy of his analysis of the contemporary situation does not necessarily prove the validity of his historical morphology.

Spengler's cyclic interpretation of history stated that a civilization was an organism having a definite and fixed life-span and moving from infancy to senescence and death by an internal necessity comparable to the biological necessity that decrees the development of the human organism from infantile imbecility to senile decrepitude. Napoleon, for example, was the counterpart of Alexander in the ancient world.

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v17/v17n2p10_Oliver.html

Happy light reading if you decide to delve into his great work "Decline of the West" as I did 25 years ago.

edit: I just noticed a typo with the video above. What a doofus I am! :oops:
 
Miles said:
Well, we obviously have advanced in science and technology. Metaphysics is still lagging :)

I agree with you.

I see that the job description of metaphysician has been outsourced to the version.2010 religious fundamentalist.
A unique influx of oil money, and a lust for atomic weapons, has created someones idea of a perfect path to Heaven for all mankind. :roll:
 
Malcolm said:
Canis Lupus said:
AGW is an arrogant theory, which ignores the incredible intelligence inherent in nature, one that exceeds our own by many multiples of ten to an almost infinite point.
This is new to me. What intelligence are we talking about here?

Intelligent design? :p
 
This is getting lively isn't it. well now what do say here. First off I was unaware of the mistakes of the UN council regarding the glaciers in the Himalayas but still that is not quite what i was talking about. Yes the melting of land bound glaciers is contributing to the overall desalinization of the earth's oceans but that is not the biggest issue. The shrinking of the ice caps is a little more immediate and viewable.
polar cap.jpg

If you look at the outline you can see how much as melted away. If you look at the left side of the picture and see how much is gone I would surmise that is quite allot of missing ice. This, to me, looks like one heck of allot of way word fresh water.

The idea that "I" could save the world is a big idea to fit your head around but I think if you shrink it down some it would be easier to take in.When I say shrink down I men do YOUR PART in what you think you are responsible for, in regards to the environment. Now if you don't think you have done anything to increase the carbon emissions or if you think it's a load of bunk then that is the amount you do undertake.
 
BungaEBiker said:
If you look at the outline you can see how much as melted away. If you look at the left side of the picture and see how much is gone I would surmise that is quite allot of missing ice. This, to me, looks like one heck of allot of way word fresh water.

The ice was floating in water before, wasn't it? If that's the case, it would make little difference to sea levels if it melted or stayed frozen. Ice has greater displacement, so allowing for some of it to be floating above the water, it's much of a muchness. Put some ice cubes in a glass of water and fill it to the top. It won't overflow when the ice cubes melt. Besides, ice levels increased last year, despite predictions to the opposite. Besides that besides, ice in the North Pole regularly melts to levels which caused alarm, even prior to heavy industrialization, indicating it is part of the natural cycle of earth to do so. Meanwhile, ice levels in the Antarctic have increased - so much so it's pushing great chunks off the land mass into the sea. No big deal, it happens. New Zealand is no stranger to massive ice bergs straying its way from the Antarctic
 
Back
Top