According to Peak Oil, oil will possibly never run out - economically extractable oil runs out. You gotta be blind not seeing this happen right now. Why do you think we are drilling under such extreme conditions - deep water, arctic? The shallow, easily extractable wells are dry. There have been no giant fields explored for decades. Just a number for perspective: The Macondo field currently spilling into the Gulf contains an estimated 100 megabarrels - That satisfies world consumption for about 30 hours. All this effort drilling at the edge of technology, all these investments, all this infrastructure, for a day's worth of oil.
Gotta concede that eternity can seem quite long at times - but as long as the expansion packs roll in in regular intervals, they'll keep leveling... As long as the universe presents the right balance of carrot and stick, it would work.
Why would you want to continually exist to reach the next level for all eternity? Eternity is a long time, and I suspect that any sentient being would grow tired of always striving to get to the next level when there is no end in sight.
Russell's teapot is an analogy that only reaches so far. The difference to religion is that it has no meaning, no meaningful interpretation, no teaching. Don't get me wrong, I am an atheist myself, but most major religions differ from that. They tell a story, they have a message. The worth of that message is debatable - it can reach from inciting to hate of everything different to the simple message of "be nice to each other". Still, this is a significant difference between belief in a god and belief in Russell's teapot. Most of my colleagues are atheist, but still, some are christian and fewer buddhist. None of those is a crank, though, and none would let his beliefs interfere with his science. In other words - none is a dogmatic, a fundamentalist or a biblical literalist. That is an important difference.
Sure, fine with that. You don't like it, you can't imagine it. The GP however, made the generalization that this was true for everyone - and that is utter crap.
True - but the infrastructure problem comes down to a resource problem in the end. You need to have the resources to build that infrastructure in the first place.
Holy false dichotomy, batman. I am getting fed up with people spouting crap along these lines. As if the only alternative to fucking the ecosystem we are part of in the ass with a razor-wire wrapped dildo was living in the stone age.
True, but today we have the technology to make any water source drinkable - from cleaning up rivers to desalinating sea water. Guys, you got gardens blooming in the middle of the Nevada desert. And still the problem comes up - that's the scary bit.
You know you are truly fucked in terms of population density when technically renewable and basically unlimited resources like water start to be discussed as possible causes of war... Interesting times ahead, guys.
At least around here (Germany) patents actually can't be granted if they are based on illegal activities - as long as there is no legal use. It's a rarely invoked clause, though, given that basically nothing is purely illegal.
Don't get me wrong - I am aware of hybrid sorts and the damage that seed companies have done to the diversity of produce. I didn't mean to imply that the decline of diversity and the general blandness began with genetic modification. I am a biochemist myself, and I have enough insight into agriculture. You are definitely right that genetic manipulation can be used to beneficial goals, and I am all for it. All I wanted to say is that it is definitely NOT used to its potential at the moment. As long as the revenue of the huge agrobusiness companies dictates the use of GM, not much good will come out of it - that's what I am saying. They are not interested in baobab - they are interested in a soy monoculture to feed feedlot cattle standing to their knees in their own manure, because that's where the profit is.
If you make it your goal to implement the use of GM you described, you have my full support. I, too, am interested in underused and rare crops. I have to admit, though, that I do not know half of those named by you. I have my work set out for me, I guess! Quinoa, sorghum and spelt are already part of my usual routine, as well as absolutely underused wild herbs like sorrel, dandelion and nettle. Good luck with your horticulture studies - and may your vision of a supermarket come true in out lifetime!
I gotta concede to Grishnak that the "fear of the different" that you cite as one reason for barbarism can be strengthened by dogmatic religion, as it is a strong means of defining an in-group in the first place. It can create exactly this difference that leads to exclusion and then to violence.
Honor the people, not the fact that they have served. It was another world, another time when you father fought. How many people go into service today because it is their only chance to get a decent education, to get out of the social environment they grew up in? This doesn't diminish their choice, but it has to be kept in mind. Honor them for the price they are willing to pay for that.
True, but it's not the weight I am talking about - it's the no-compromise crash dynamics. Today you always have the crash partner in mind when you design the deformation properties of your chassis. Back then, they didn't give a flying fuck. Just grind them down beneath your engine...;)
Fair enough. I hope I could make clear which part of religiosity I found agreeable under what conditions. We are, after all, on the same side here, even if I may have a weakness for ritual and overwhelming pomp...
Sorry to reply once more. Just a little tidbit - I find the whole concept of "tolerating" something appalling. The word lost its meaning. Tolerare in latin means to suffer something. This is a sign of utter contempt. You hate it, but grudgingly go along with it. Either I respect it, or condemn it. I respect the open-minded religious person, I condemn the dogmatic. I am not stepping down to simply tolerating hate, just because it is religious in nature.
Don't get me wrong here - the respect I mentioned extends to the point only where the preacher is exactly NOT violating my scientific worldview. This exists. The last preacher I heard made the point that the New Testament Commandment of Love was, explicitly in his opinion, not to be interpreted as law, but as heuristic rule. That is, explicitly in my opinion, the worldview of someone who gave the subject thought. That I can respect, and that, coupled with the aesthetics of the ritual, I can like and rejoice in. There is no mindless, dogmatic component violating my scientific point of view - that is exactly how I see it. Just be goddamn nice to each other if possible, not for the fear of hellfire, but because it fucking makes the world a better place. Not because God Said So (TM).
Don't get me wrong, I never wanted to make a general apology for religion up there. When I am talking about enjoying the spiritual beauty and the bonding experience within the community, I implicitly assume not being offended by weird-ass dogmatics. Yes, you can justify such positions on other grounds, but all I was saying that I know some catholic preachers (and I am not even catholic by education before I went atheist), that make no other point than "Guys, this is a great place. Look at the beauty. Don't fuck each other over, there is enough to enjoy for everyone!", all wrapped in beautiful ritual, which, actually, speaks to everyone's aesthetic sense, giving everyone a reminder that there is beauty out there. THAT I can respect.
You could as well wrap the same thing in some completely secular environment. I don't enjoy it because I experienced within a religious context, but rather despite of it. There are people out there who are genuinly well-meaning, who interpret religion's core purpose to make people not fuck over each other - and those I meant in above posting.
To be more precise, that is the difference between dogmatic religion and mythological inspired spirituality/philosophy/religion. There's a whole continuum in between. All I am saying is that you gotta evaluate it on a case by case basis. I see the dangers and evils of dogmatism and fundamentalism as clearly as you, but that does not make anything remotely religious or spiritual evil per se.
Slashdot Mirror
According to Peak Oil, oil will possibly never run out - economically extractable oil runs out. You gotta be blind not seeing this happen right now. Why do you think we are drilling under such extreme conditions - deep water, arctic? The shallow, easily extractable wells are dry. There have been no giant fields explored for decades. Just a number for perspective: The Macondo field currently spilling into the Gulf contains an estimated 100 megabarrels - That satisfies world consumption for about 30 hours. All this effort drilling at the edge of technology, all these investments, all this infrastructure, for a day's worth of oil.
You notice the "technically" and "basically" up there? I am aware of that. That's what makes the situation scary indeed.
Gotta concede that eternity can seem quite long at times - but as long as the expansion packs roll in in regular intervals, they'll keep leveling... As long as the universe presents the right balance of carrot and stick, it would work.
Why would you want to continually exist to reach the next level for all eternity? Eternity is a long time, and I suspect that any sentient being would grow tired of always striving to get to the next level when there is no end in sight.
Hm... You are aware of the success of WoW? ;)
Russell's teapot is an analogy that only reaches so far. The difference to religion is that it has no meaning, no meaningful interpretation, no teaching. Don't get me wrong, I am an atheist myself, but most major religions differ from that. They tell a story, they have a message. The worth of that message is debatable - it can reach from inciting to hate of everything different to the simple message of "be nice to each other". Still, this is a significant difference between belief in a god and belief in Russell's teapot. Most of my colleagues are atheist, but still, some are christian and fewer buddhist. None of those is a crank, though, and none would let his beliefs interfere with his science. In other words - none is a dogmatic, a fundamentalist or a biblical literalist. That is an important difference.
Sure, fine with that. You don't like it, you can't imagine it. The GP however, made the generalization that this was true for everyone - and that is utter crap.
True - but the infrastructure problem comes down to a resource problem in the end. You need to have the resources to build that infrastructure in the first place.
True, true
But still:
1. Yes. Slaughter day rocks - fresh sausages+beer, and yeah I participated in the work often enough.
2. More that true. The region I was born was huge in textile industry - now it is a post-industrial wasteland.
3. We have been busy inventing new types of morons for centuries. Nothing to see here. More prominent now, though, I give you that.
4. Disagree. Better to actually investigate what is wrong with people than just sticking them into asylum under the general diagnosis of "nutcase".
5. Algebra, ring theory - next question? (not an EE myself, though, but a biochemist who used to use FFT daily)
Holy false dichotomy, batman. I am getting fed up with people spouting crap along these lines. As if the only alternative to fucking the ecosystem we are part of in the ass with a razor-wire wrapped dildo was living in the stone age.
I suspect they included the amount of water used to produce the goods you consume, not only your immediate personal consumption.
True, but today we have the technology to make any water source drinkable - from cleaning up rivers to desalinating sea water. Guys, you got gardens blooming in the middle of the Nevada desert. And still the problem comes up - that's the scary bit.
You know you are truly fucked in terms of population density when technically renewable and basically unlimited resources like water start to be discussed as possible causes of war... Interesting times ahead, guys.
At least around here (Germany) patents actually can't be granted if they are based on illegal activities - as long as there is no legal use. It's a rarely invoked clause, though, given that basically nothing is purely illegal.
Don't get me wrong - I am aware of hybrid sorts and the damage that seed companies have done to the diversity of produce. I didn't mean to imply that the decline of diversity and the general blandness began with genetic modification. I am a biochemist myself, and I have enough insight into agriculture. You are definitely right that genetic manipulation can be used to beneficial goals, and I am all for it. All I wanted to say is that it is definitely NOT used to its potential at the moment. As long as the revenue of the huge agrobusiness companies dictates the use of GM, not much good will come out of it - that's what I am saying. They are not interested in baobab - they are interested in a soy monoculture to feed feedlot cattle standing to their knees in their own manure, because that's where the profit is.
If you make it your goal to implement the use of GM you described, you have my full support. I, too, am interested in underused and rare crops. I have to admit, though, that I do not know half of those named by you. I have my work set out for me, I guess! Quinoa, sorghum and spelt are already part of my usual routine, as well as absolutely underused wild herbs like sorrel, dandelion and nettle. Good luck with your horticulture studies - and may your vision of a supermarket come true in out lifetime!
I gotta concede to Grishnak that the "fear of the different" that you cite as one reason for barbarism can be strengthened by dogmatic religion, as it is a strong means of defining an in-group in the first place. It can create exactly this difference that leads to exclusion and then to violence.
Sad state of affairs if this is not remembered as prime reference for Captain Jack. Billy Joel is more on topic than the above links anyway.
They are just learning from Sparta...
Meh, I just stepped up to Monarch level in Civ IV. Got a place with the Joint Chiefs for me?
Honor the people, not the fact that they have served. It was another world, another time when you father fought. How many people go into service today because it is their only chance to get a decent education, to get out of the social environment they grew up in? This doesn't diminish their choice, but it has to be kept in mind. Honor them for the price they are willing to pay for that.
True, but it's not the weight I am talking about - it's the no-compromise crash dynamics. Today you always have the crash partner in mind when you design the deformation properties of your chassis. Back then, they didn't give a flying fuck. Just grind them down beneath your engine... ;)
Fair enough. I hope I could make clear which part of religiosity I found agreeable under what conditions. We are, after all, on the same side here, even if I may have a weakness for ritual and overwhelming pomp...
Sorry to reply once more. Just a little tidbit - I find the whole concept of "tolerating" something appalling. The word lost its meaning. Tolerare in latin means to suffer something. This is a sign of utter contempt. You hate it, but grudgingly go along with it. Either I respect it, or condemn it. I respect the open-minded religious person, I condemn the dogmatic. I am not stepping down to simply tolerating hate, just because it is religious in nature.
Don't get me wrong here - the respect I mentioned extends to the point only where the preacher is exactly NOT violating my scientific worldview. This exists. The last preacher I heard made the point that the New Testament Commandment of Love was, explicitly in his opinion, not to be interpreted as law, but as heuristic rule. That is, explicitly in my opinion, the worldview of someone who gave the subject thought. That I can respect, and that, coupled with the aesthetics of the ritual, I can like and rejoice in. There is no mindless, dogmatic component violating my scientific point of view - that is exactly how I see it. Just be goddamn nice to each other if possible, not for the fear of hellfire, but because it fucking makes the world a better place. Not because God Said So (TM).
Don't get me wrong, I never wanted to make a general apology for religion up there. When I am talking about enjoying the spiritual beauty and the bonding experience within the community, I implicitly assume not being offended by weird-ass dogmatics. Yes, you can justify such positions on other grounds, but all I was saying that I know some catholic preachers (and I am not even catholic by education before I went atheist), that make no other point than "Guys, this is a great place. Look at the beauty. Don't fuck each other over, there is enough to enjoy for everyone!", all wrapped in beautiful ritual, which, actually, speaks to everyone's aesthetic sense, giving everyone a reminder that there is beauty out there. THAT I can respect.
You could as well wrap the same thing in some completely secular environment. I don't enjoy it because I experienced within a religious context, but rather despite of it. There are people out there who are genuinly well-meaning, who interpret religion's core purpose to make people not fuck over each other - and those I meant in above posting.
I suggest you keep on regulating the funkiness. Where will the world end if you stop with that essential task? Keep it up, brother.
To be more precise, that is the difference between dogmatic religion and mythological inspired spirituality/philosophy/religion. There's a whole continuum in between. All I am saying is that you gotta evaluate it on a case by case basis. I see the dangers and evils of dogmatism and fundamentalism as clearly as you, but that does not make anything remotely religious or spiritual evil per se.