Fear what? Small earthquakes? If something bad could happen, wouldn't it be better to know than not know?
Fear "small earthquakes" going out of control or having other unforeseen consequences due to corporations efforts to make it "economic".
Remember Deepwater Horizon oil spill? That one happened due to "BP, Halliburton, and Transocean attempting to work more cheaply and thus helping to trigger the explosion and ensuing leakage". Just because AltaRock Energy Inc. are funded by Google and Paul Allen, instead of by Halliburton, that does not mean that they are less of a corporation, or that they "do no evil".
wouldn't it be better to know than not know?
Sure. You COULD find out if licking a wall-socket will kill you by simply licking the said socket, OR you could look at the data so far and make conclusions based on that. Similarly, one would think that we have settled the issue of checking if the gun is loaded by staring down the barrel and pulling the trigger. And yet, every year we hear of new tragic cases of people doing exactly that and leaving behind children. Had they only blown their brains out BEFORE siring offspring...
When the person representing the corporation in charge says something like this:
"We know the heat is there," said Susan Petty, president of AltaRock. "The big issue is can we circulate enough water through the system to make it economic."
We've been monitoring [The Geysers] since 1975. All the earthquakes we see there are [human] induced. When they move production into a new area, earthquakes start there, and when they stop production, the earthquakes stop.
For a prominent one, Terry Pratchett has early onset Alzheimer's but can't be put on medications for it because he's too young. That's bureaucrats overriding medical science. Socialized health care isn't interested in improving the quality of life. As a consequence, he will likely be taking his own life soon-- amusingly, in Switzerland. I guess assisted suicide isn't covered in the UK.
How about that the said drug is now actually recommended? Or the fact that actually there were no limitations to the availability of the drug to anyone, as you could still pay for it yourself (only you'd have to pay the whole thing out of your pocket, or your private insurance's pocket), and particularly not to Pratchett who is a bloody millionaire.
He or she could opt to take the free NHS standard treatment, or he or she may decide to pay out of pocket to obtain the benefit of the new treatment from a different health care provider. If the person has a private health insurance policy the person could check to see whether the private insurance provider will fund the new treatment. About 8% of the population has some private health insurance from an employer or trade association and 2% pay from their own resources.
So that bullshit about him thinking of hopping over to Switzerland to kill himself BECAUSE the ebil soil-she-lized gubermint won't let him have his life saving pill... nice troll. No... really. Lovely. Not quite on the holocaust denier level, but close. And it has more charm.
Now... Unlike you, Pratchett is not in it for trolling. He made the comments about the drug as he is concerned that, unlike him, there are actually people out there who can't afford the extra 2.5 pounds per day cost. Interestingly, while the Aricept/Donepezil's "cash-and-carry" price is 800-1000 pounds per year in the UK (about 1500$), up until recently it cost twice as much in the USA. While the high price has primarily to do with patents, I'll leave it to you to ponder how the same drug could cost twice as much in a country which has SIX times greater population (higher demand, ergo - should cost less) and only ~1.4 times greater purchasing parity GDP per capita.
Socialized health care isn't interested in improving the quality of life.
Funny you should phrase it like that.
See... the ACTUAL issue that caused Pratchett to speak out about the NHS policy on the said drug has EVERYTHING to do with improving the quality of life.
Problem is... How do you quantify something as immaterial as "quality of life"? And remember, you must take in account that different people value different things differently. And before you ask "Why should you quantify it at all? Isn't all life sacred and precious?" - take a million dollars and threat 100 people with that money. For a year. But you have to give each one of them the same quality of life, regardless of the fact that they will be chosen completely randomly, just as their age, living conditions and illnesses will be completely random. And you don't get to know in advance who's the next person coming through the door, or what is their illness, but all of them ARE life-threatening.
Oh and, since you love hyperbole so much - all the people you don't get to help will be considered murders. Done by you. Personally. As if you've taken an axe to each and everyone of them. You sick fuck.
There there were no "civilian prisoners" because the Japanese of the time viewed most foreigners as sub-human, and so had as little remorse for killing the locals as they would a stray dog.
Just because the Japanese were not as systematic as the Nazis in WW2 does not mean they were any less brutal or evil.
Please reread the entire paragraph and the parents paragraph it is addressing.
I do not question or deny that Japanese have committed war crimes during WWII. I am just saying that there were not that many signs of those crimes INSIDE JAPAN, as they were mostly committed outside of Japanese borders, in other countries. Sure, Japanese soldiers did commit war crimes.
But they did not exterminate 10-11 million "lesser humans" inside their own (at the time) borders. They did not build hundreds of concentration and extermination camps so close to home. They did their killing OUTSIDE OF JAPAN.
As such, there were no concentration camps or gas chambers or cremation furnaces or mass graves for US marines to keep tripping over on Japanese soil - had they invaded Japan. No "evidence of Japanese war crimes to fuel the already bitter hatred of the Japanese" - to quote the parent.
I note Japan has never made reparations for their many war crimes.... What would US soldiers have felt about the japanese people if they had to fight through Japan with more and more evidence of Japanese war crimes to fuel the already bitter hatred of the Japanese?
One - Japan got a free ride from the USA in exchange for the data it gathered from their inhumane experiments. Two - They DID make reparations for many war crimes. Three - US soldiers would not feel a damn thing (other than the already present racism against the Japs which was rather prevalent back then) - as Japan was not Nazi Germany. Their concentration camps (as in places where war crimes was a part of daily routine) were mostly offshore in places like Korea, China and Philippines - you know... places where they were actually doing the fighting, capturing and executing of soldiers and civilians, pillaging and other activities that make war so much fun apparently. Their camps in Japan were mostly of the interment kind. No gas chambers or furnaces. Or even that much civilian prisoners.
As for German women being raped... That was NOT due to Russians fighting through "the evidence of german war crimes". Russians even did their share of mass executions. Just ask Poles.
It was not some temporary loss of moral compass due to seeing incredible injustice and evil. It was a calculated revenge of a victor.
"What would US soldiers have felt about the japanese people if they had to fight through Japan with more and more evidence of Japanese war crimes to fuel the already bitter hatred of the Japanese?"
You mean the way they systematically raped and killed German civilians after having to fight through half of Europe, littered with evidence of German war crimes? Oh no... wait... I meant the way they systematically distributed aid to German civilians. Slip of tongue there.
That seems like a very complicated answer. How bout "a hacker is an engineer with a really small budget".
Cause basically, it is wrong.
Hacker is a mindset. Usually one coming from a natural propensity towards tinkering and technology.
Engineer is a vocation. And while an underlying propensity towards tinkering and technology MAY be present, one is an engineer first and foremost due to training and education.
Take away engineer's budget and he/she won't drop his/her mindset or the accumulated knowledge about best practices on solving the problem and go back to tinkering until they blindly stumble on the solution. Give hacker the same education and neither will he/she.
While I agree that geospatially enhancing polls are a very good thing(and I'd expect rather surprising results) none of the candidates run on local platforms. Even if most of them seem to change their song&dance according to local customs.
E.g. Have a bunch of people twatting about the need to preserve Pedobears, that proud American icon, from extinction. Have the "Save the Pedobear" campaign trending prior to "the big speech" and wait for the politicians to adjust their "song&dance" accordingly. Hijinks ensue.
It's worth noting that the obvious counter argument is that the iPad is already targeted at very close relatives of these apes. I doubt it'll take that much work to come up with a user interface that Great Apes and other primates can use.
Developing something for kids is not the same as developing something for adults. Extrapolate that to developing software and GUI for apes, supposedly to match their needs and requests - when only a tiniest fraction of them can relate only the very basic concepts and words. "Blue-Blue-Banana-Happy" is not really something one could consider software development documentation.
As to the last suggestion, the more varied the inhabitants of our society are, the more interesting that society will be. There is nothing inherently magical about being human.
"Interesting" != "Better" Or even "good" most of the time. "May you live in interesting times" is not considered a curse for nothing. Plenty of "interesting" people in jails, insane asylums, on the internet... Still wouldn't want 99.997% of them anywhere near me or my food.
And while there is no SINGLE thing that makes us magical there are MANY things which together make us special among primates AND animals. The fact that we are communicating through the use of electrons right now, while other primates can barely comprehend using a rock to smash things, pretty much demonstrates how god damn special we are.
Apes on the other hand, are probably never going to have any sort of power over their genetic future unless they become intelligent enough to take control of their own destiny.
Small correction. Intelligence has nothing to do with it. We do not live in a Noocracy. Only way they would be able to exert ANY control of their destiny is if they would actually outnumber humans. A notion that most humans may find a tad bit unacceptable.
After all, where were apes when we were building the world through sweat and blood? What did they ever do for us? Besides Tarzan movies and AIDS?
Other than that, I completely agree with the rest of your post.
I am rather certain (above 90%) that you are not trolling, and that you are actually serious about your ideas and views. Sadly, I am also quite certain that the issue of ape education and improvement, though being something that I am barely able to wright with a straight face, is a matter of great importance to you. I say "sadly" cause it reminds me of the view that religious people have regarding their religious beliefs. I.e. Not (really) open to discussion.
Now... I could argue the points where you are wrong (from understanding of human intellect at young age to understanding of the evolutionary process), where you didn't understand my point (Development is not an issue. Development for APES is.), or where you are bordering on WTF - but I really lack the time to be dragged in an argument about political rights of animals.
I would advise you though to read up on the subjects of evolution, ACTUAL intelligence of both humans and apes and the forms it takes. I have a feeling that you are pushing your ideas mostly on faith and casually picked up news stories - which can be a dangerous thing just as any other sufficiently low quantity of knowledge.
...which is currently being occupied by humans.
Your position has been applied to many racist and sexist entitlements since the dawn of man. Have fun with that.
Again, you are reading me completely wrong. Unfortunately, you are also making your comments from a position into which I simply can't gain insight. So, I can't really understand where you got that racist/sexist bit from my comment above.
What I was implying is that you are pushing a position of "upgrading" apes mentally and physically through any means possible until they reach human levels of intelligence, expression and perhaps the quality of life. And in the meanwhile we should start treating them as if they are on that level already. "Human rights" and all. Which besides being utterly mad, on par with sending a clinically insane violent psychotic with a mind of a 4-year-old in a body of a grown man to a kindergarten, to learn and play with other children of his "age" - it is utterly and completely immoral thing to do to the apes.
Cause that road does not lead to an "Ape 2.0" or to a better quality of life for them. That is the road to human-like-apes. If that does not set off the alarms for you, try this. Instead of apes, think about all those shorter, fatter, less intelligent, not as attractive HUMANS and what would it be like if some "authority" decided to "upgrade them" all to the current standardized human. Then multiply that by all the evolutionary steps the ape in question made from its last common ancestor it shares with the current humans.
In fact, it would be far more humane and moral to simply round up all apes and kill them all. And then we can simply delegate some uglier and dumber humans to the position of human-like-apes.
Cause upgrading apes to human-like-apes would make the current apes extinct anyway. Unless you are proposing that we provide them with a "lower species" by leaving some apes out of that ape-eugenics program - perhaps so that the human-like-apes can feel the joys of racism the way we never could?
Please read the following part of the parent post out loud and tell me it isn't even a tiny bit ambiguous.
It is a relatively simple process to program apps and change the icons of apps to lexigrams geared towards apes, and I find the idea of giving apes like Kanzi, as well as other apes that have worked extensively with primatologists, exposure to such technology as worthy enough to hold sufficient merit.
Much like learning a foreign language, if we teach all these exposed and inclined apes the same 'words' it isn't a huge leap to believe that in a few generations it could manifest itself as something that is passed on within the confines of each society of apes from generation to generation.
Even across species Kanzi the Bonobo picked up some ASL from watching videos of Koko the Gorilla. With a little determination on our part, this could be the start of something much greater.
Humans came up the hard way, but that doesn't mean that apes have to go that route.
Just to clarify, paragraphs above include: - proposal for development of software, GUI and an alphabet aimed at apes. - describing equipping apes with 21st century entertainment technology as "worthy enough to hold sufficient merit". - inventing an "ape Esperanto", teaching it to apes - hoping it will catch on as their Lingua Simia, - the following line: "Kanzi the Bonobo picked up some ASL from watching videos of Koko the Gorilla". - and finally, suggestion that apes SHOULD aim for some not clearly defined position (Evolutionary? Cultural? Civilizational? Consumerist? Political?...) which is currently being occupied by humans.
I've accidentally quit caffeine cold turkey several times (not a big coffee drinker, used it strictly as a stimulant). I would forget to have my "daily dose" after finishing whatever task that required me to stay awake and alert longer. I.e. At the beginning of a vacation. Splitting headaches, muscle and joint pains and generally a zombie-like behavior would last for about two days before I'd get back on my feet.
Switching to green tea, first as a "cool down" stimulant then switching to it completely, I don't have those issues anymore. Sure, there's still caffeine in the tea but there is far less of it and I never reach my caffeine limit. So, I don't get the "buzz" but I do get the alertness. Plus, I don't have the issues with dehydration as a decent cup of tea is still mostly water.
And if I want to or have to quit the tea too, i.e. I forget to take it with me to a place where they don't serve it - at worst I'll get a bit drowsy. Also, I'm told that it's rather healthy.
Granted, if you are used to taking your caffeine through coke instead of coffee it may be harder than simply"deciding to switch". Particularly in the summer, when most bars/restaurants/coffee shops don't serve tea - but everyone serves Coke. And coffee. Bonus difficulty points if you are getting most of your supply from a local vending or coffee machine at work.
My solution is to order mineral water instead of coke (unless they serve green tea), and bringing my own supply of tea to work in a thermos bottle.
Or perhaps we need a way to reduce the human population to the longer term carrying capacity of the planet, which might just be far far below 5 billion... or nature will surely figure out a way to accomplish that for us.
Planet basically has no human capacity limit, that we could ever reach. Human civilization as we know it on the other hand...
And we are way beyond that 5 billion number you mention. At this point the only way we can get back there is if we kill off 2 billion people, and then limit everyone in the world to a "one child per parent - no more, no less"-rule. And then we can just lay back and relax as we slowly exterminate ourselves through such a breeding scheme as we need at least 2.1 children per couple - unless we start killing off boys and "uncoupled" humans. Or unless we delegate breeding of those 0.1 babies to those "more suitable".
BTW, that also is an end to the human civilization as we know it.
As for nature... Well... it already has a solution for overpopulation. Death. Now, humans being slightly allergic to death, I'm more of a fan of an idea where humans find solutions for their problems without the use of death. And last time I checked, the only beings preoccupied with finding solutions to the problems of the humans are humans. Whodathunkit!
So basically what we actually need in order to solve our problem with the ACQUIREMENT AND THE DISTRIBUTION OF RESOURCES for an ever growing population of humans is - more problem solving humans. And the only way we know so far for getting more of those is through getting more humans, and teaching them how to better solve problems.
You might say how that too is the nature's way of solving the problem for us, except this method actually requires that we get off our asses and... that kinda gets us into a whole other issue about what exactly is natural for us and all that.
By adapt as a species we mean by engineering solutions. Build stores of water, desalinate, some kind of preservation project. At worst case he was talking about relocating entire populations to more habitable places. His idea was mainly focused on some pacific island which modelling suggests would get swept away with a global warming sized ocean rise.
Well... that ain't really "as a species" anything. More like "them there brownie people should toughen up". Is that economist per chance Australian?
Also, "mainly focused on some pacific island" just reads to me as more of "somebody else's problem" - a concept that does not exist when we are talking about global issues. Which is something any economist who's been breathing the air on this planet for the last decade or so should be aware of.
Ultimately though I agree with the prognosis that any large scale relocation attempt can only really end in war. As it is refugee is a dirty enough word. I don't see our governments realistically opening up their borders to an entire small 3rd world nation.
Small third world nations are not really a problem. Billions of people in Asia are. Future billion+ of people in Africa too. 70% of all humans live on those two continents. Guess who has the best chance of feeling the effects of a global climate change, per capita.
Regardless what happens (global war, global famine, rampaging pandemics, global economic crises...) we are beyond the point where we can solve or even reduce the problems by sending aid packages. We got actual global problems. You simply can't solve those one country or "world" at a time.
It's one world. Sticking our collective heads in the sand, pretending it is somebody else's problem... Sorry, but that really irks me. Particularly from someone who is apparently enough of an authority in a (very) vaguely related field that they get to spew such nonsense in the media. Authoritatively.
With our current population of 6bil, we are consuming about 1.4 Earths of water/food/energy. We are quickly depleting what we have. I don't think doubling the population is such a good idea.
One - there are ~7 billion humans living on Earth at the moment. 7+ if you ask UN instead of USA. Two - are you REALLY trying to say that we are spending 140% of available resources of the planet?
Here's a fun experiment. Get a bag of chips or some other easily obtainable prepackaged food item. Now try eating 140% of the contents of that single packet of food.
Can != Should
If these past decades since the world has been introduced to the Internet has taught us anything it is that Can == You better bloody believe it will happen.
As for doubling the population... We are the only creatures on this planet who work on solving the problems of our ENTIRE RACE. Regardless if you believe in "two heads are better than one" or in "the spark of genius" - more people is the solution for both. Every additional billion humans means we acquire 20 million more geniuses. Not to mention everyone else in the "above average" 25% (~1.75 billion at the moment) or EVERYONE when the problem actually requires physical instead of mental labor.
Just imagine what we could do with all those brains and all those brains and all those bodies! The problems we could solve and fix.
The economist was arguing the exact opposite, that the global effort to change the lifestyle and energy sources of half the population of the world would be orders of magnitude more expensive than to simply adapt as a species and relocate or provide resources in some other means to people dispersed by global warming.
But I will have to go with "nonsense" on that diagnosis.
Haven't read the article, can't comment on the said economists motives but I am fairly sure that he/she IS making his/her arguments from an ignorant position and a with a highly specialized and limited outlook of the world.
First off, saying "half the population" indicates that he lives in some past age when the developed nations (ones who are responsible for the greater part of the human influence on the climate) were approximately one half of the world population. Which is no longer the case. "Traditionally poor" continents of Asia and Africa amount to ~5 billion of the ~7 billion humans currently on this planet.
Second, rest assured that the poor nations would be the ones who would feel the effects of global warming the most. Millions would likely die from hunger, wars caused by said hunger and health issues (disease and lack of medicine) caused by both.
Calculating the "cost" of change in developed nations energy policy merely in dollars, when it is clear to anyone who would take 5 minutes to meditate on the subject that the current policies would cost in lives, lost generations and even in those utterly immeasurable categories such as loss of culture and civilization indicates that the proponent of the "just send aid" has traded his/her moral compass for something more... quantifiable.
Then, there is the problem of "WTF?" in such a solution. We can't adapt energy policy of developed nations with their (comparably) functioning economies and bureaucracies but at the same time it is a perfectly acceptable idea that we should be able "to simply adapt as a species"? I'm guessing this will be accomplished through spontaneous mutation of chlorophyll cells in our bodies so that we can harvest the energy of the Sun, dispensing with that pesky habit of eating altogether? Or perhaps by growing gills and webbed hands and feet so that we can live under water?
Then there is the utter lack of foresight. Which does not surprise me since the said economist is working with numbers from decades ago. I.e. Is stuck in the past.
We don't need a solution for a world of 5, 6 or 7 billion people, with maybe half of them living in the developed nations. We need an adaptable, scalable solution for at least 9 billion humans, with at least 7 billion of them living in the developing nations. Which is where we will be 40 or so years down the road, just as the world's supply of oil nears the end of its economical use.
And saying to those 7 billion "Ah, just move somewhere else" basically means "Come, take my already strained resources - you're gonna take them by force anyway since you and yours outnumber me and mine by 4 to 1. And you've grown up in the society where human life is very cheap.".
So, unless we come up with cold fusion in the next decade or so we MUST start relying on renewable energy resources. Cause "poor" of the world sure as hell will not. Can not. At the same time they will be faced with increased population and dwindling resources - perfect conditions for declaring war. On their cousins, on their neighbors, on the "wealthy", on those of a different color...
So, developed nations either come up with a solution for both energy and the climate crisis and give it to the developing nations OR be faced with the possibility of being on a losing side of a global war couple of decades down the road. Not that there can be a winning side in a war whose goal is to manage couple of billion humans through reduction of their numbers. It's just that some people have a lot less to lose.
Sorry, but that much space is more than enough for each person to house, clothe and feed themselves at the level expected for a person living in the early 21st century, WITHOUT the use of any technology invented in the last 2000 years. Not to mention the advancements made in the last half a century or so.
Relax. Watch and read this. We have a whole planet for ourselves. We just need to be a bit more rational in the use of all the resources at our disposal. Also, a bit less effort in killing each other and a bit more invested in education NOW might prove highly useful when the population of poorest nations outnumbers the population of the richest by four to one. 40 or so years down the road.
What people who fall for the "they create jobs" meme fail to see is that they don't need a job, they need money. The job is just the means to the end, not the end itself.
A job is much, much more than just "a way to make money". Being able to work for your own and your family's sustenance and improvement gives people a purpose in life, makes them proud of their own accomplishments and basically makes them MORE than mere consumers. Which is what just giving them money makes them into.
Mind you, I am not speaking against government or anyone else helping out those in need or those unable to work or fully support themselves or their families through their work. Personally, I believe that acts like that don't just make us more civilized but also "good". Or at least better.
Monetary help - good and often needed. Sustaining and fulfilling work - much better.
Because gleefully exclaiming that the money is worth the risk is probably an indicator of an unstable personality at best, if not a depressed/suicidal disorder.
Apparently, it is also highly likely that such a person uses Internet Explorer.
Slashdot Mirror
Fear what? Small earthquakes? If something bad could happen, wouldn't it be better to know than not know?
Fear "small earthquakes" going out of control or having other unforeseen consequences due to corporations efforts to make it "economic".
Remember Deepwater Horizon oil spill?
That one happened due to "BP, Halliburton, and Transocean attempting to work more cheaply and thus helping to trigger the explosion and ensuing leakage".
Just because AltaRock Energy Inc. are funded by Google and Paul Allen, instead of by Halliburton, that does not mean that they are less of a corporation, or that they "do no evil".
wouldn't it be better to know than not know?
Sure.
You COULD find out if licking a wall-socket will kill you by simply licking the said socket, OR you could look at the data so far and make conclusions based on that.
Similarly, one would think that we have settled the issue of checking if the gun is loaded by staring down the barrel and pulling the trigger.
And yet, every year we hear of new tragic cases of people doing exactly that and leaving behind children.
Had they only blown their brains out BEFORE siring offspring...
When the person representing the corporation in charge says something like this:
"We know the heat is there," said Susan Petty, president of AltaRock.
"The big issue is can we circulate enough water through the system to make it economic."
And the expert seismologist says something like this:
We've been monitoring [The Geysers] since 1975.
All the earthquakes we see there are [human] induced.
When they move production into a new area, earthquakes start there, and when they stop production, the earthquakes stop.
Well... You kinda have a reason to fear.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_injector
Second... Oh... where to start...
For a prominent one, Terry Pratchett has early onset Alzheimer's but can't be put on medications for it because he's too young. That's bureaucrats overriding medical science. Socialized health care isn't interested in improving the quality of life. As a consequence, he will likely be taking his own life soon-- amusingly, in Switzerland. I guess assisted suicide isn't covered in the UK.
How about that the said drug is now actually recommended?
Or the fact that actually there were no limitations to the availability of the drug to anyone, as you could still pay for it yourself (only you'd have to pay the whole thing out of your pocket, or your private insurance's pocket), and particularly not to Pratchett who is a bloody millionaire.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NICE#Cost_per_quality-adjusted_life_year_gained
He or she could opt to take the free NHS standard treatment, or he or she may decide to pay out of pocket to obtain the benefit of the new treatment from a different health care provider. If the person has a private health insurance policy the person could check to see whether the private insurance provider will fund the new treatment. About 8% of the population has some private health insurance from an employer or trade association and 2% pay from their own resources.
So that bullshit about him thinking of hopping over to Switzerland to kill himself BECAUSE the ebil soil-she-lized gubermint won't let him have his life saving pill... nice troll.
No... really. Lovely.
Not quite on the holocaust denier level, but close. And it has more charm.
Now... Unlike you, Pratchett is not in it for trolling.
He made the comments about the drug as he is concerned that, unlike him, there are actually people out there who can't afford the extra 2.5 pounds per day cost.
Interestingly, while the Aricept/Donepezil's "cash-and-carry" price is 800-1000 pounds per year in the UK (about 1500$), up until recently it cost twice as much in the USA.
While the high price has primarily to do with patents, I'll leave it to you to ponder how the same drug could cost twice as much in a country which has SIX times greater population (higher demand, ergo - should cost less) and only ~1.4 times greater purchasing parity GDP per capita.
Socialized health care isn't interested in improving the quality of life.
Funny you should phrase it like that.
See... the ACTUAL issue that caused Pratchett to speak out about the NHS policy on the said drug has EVERYTHING to do with improving the quality of life.
Problem is... How do you quantify something as immaterial as "quality of life"?
And remember, you must take in account that different people value different things differently.
And before you ask "Why should you quantify it at all? Isn't all life sacred and precious?" - take a million dollars and threat 100 people with that money. For a year.
But you have to give each one of them the same quality of life, regardless of the fact that they will be chosen completely randomly, just as their age, living conditions and illnesses will be completely random.
And you don't get to know in advance who's the next person coming through the door, or what is their illness, but all of them ARE life-threatening.
Oh and, since you love hyperbole so much - all the people you don't get to help will be considered murders.
Done by you. Personally.
As if you've taken an axe to each and everyone of them.
You sick fuck.
There there were no "civilian prisoners" because the Japanese of the time viewed most foreigners as sub-human, and so had as little remorse for killing the locals as they would a stray dog.
Just because the Japanese were not as systematic as the Nazis in WW2 does not mean they were any less brutal or evil.
Please reread the entire paragraph and the parents paragraph it is addressing.
I do not question or deny that Japanese have committed war crimes during WWII.
I am just saying that there were not that many signs of those crimes INSIDE JAPAN, as they were mostly committed outside of Japanese borders, in other countries.
Sure, Japanese soldiers did commit war crimes.
But they did not exterminate 10-11 million "lesser humans" inside their own (at the time) borders.
They did not build hundreds of concentration and extermination camps so close to home.
They did their killing OUTSIDE OF JAPAN.
As such, there were no concentration camps or gas chambers or cremation furnaces or mass graves for US marines to keep tripping over on Japanese soil - had they invaded Japan.
No "evidence of Japanese war crimes to fuel the already bitter hatred of the Japanese" - to quote the parent.
I note Japan has never made reparations for their many war crimes. ...
What would US soldiers have felt about the japanese people if they had to fight through Japan with more and more evidence of Japanese war crimes to fuel the already bitter hatred of the Japanese?
One - Japan got a free ride from the USA in exchange for the data it gathered from their inhumane experiments.
Two - They DID make reparations for many war crimes.
Three - US soldiers would not feel a damn thing (other than the already present racism against the Japs which was rather prevalent back then) - as Japan was not Nazi Germany.
Their concentration camps (as in places where war crimes was a part of daily routine) were mostly offshore in places like Korea, China and Philippines - you know... places where they were actually doing the fighting, capturing and executing of soldiers and civilians, pillaging and other activities that make war so much fun apparently.
Their camps in Japan were mostly of the interment kind.
No gas chambers or furnaces. Or even that much civilian prisoners.
As for German women being raped...
That was NOT due to Russians fighting through "the evidence of german war crimes".
Russians even did their share of mass executions. Just ask Poles.
Russian soldiers were let loose in Germany because of the 26,600,000 Soviets lost in the WWII.
About 8.6 million of them soldiers.
It was not some temporary loss of moral compass due to seeing incredible injustice and evil. It was a calculated revenge of a victor.
"What would US soldiers have felt about the japanese people if they had to fight through Japan with more and more evidence of Japanese war crimes to fuel the already bitter hatred of the Japanese?"
You mean the way they systematically raped and killed German civilians after having to fight through half of Europe, littered with evidence of German war crimes?
Oh no... wait... I meant the way they systematically distributed aid to German civilians.
Slip of tongue there.
...have also been shown to have, if not an improving, than at least not a decrementing effect on productivity.
That seems like a very complicated answer. How bout "a hacker is an engineer with a really small budget".
Cause basically, it is wrong.
Hacker is a mindset.
Usually one coming from a natural propensity towards tinkering and technology.
Engineer is a vocation.
And while an underlying propensity towards tinkering and technology MAY be present, one is an engineer first and foremost due to training and education.
Take away engineer's budget and he/she won't drop his/her mindset or the accumulated knowledge about best practices on solving the problem and go back to tinkering until they blindly stumble on the solution.
Give hacker the same education and neither will he/she.
While I agree that geospatially enhancing polls are a very good thing(and I'd expect rather surprising results) none of the candidates run on local platforms. Even if most of them seem to change their song&dance according to local customs.
E.g. Have a bunch of people twatting about the need to preserve Pedobears, that proud American icon, from extinction.
Have the "Save the Pedobear" campaign trending prior to "the big speech" and wait for the politicians to adjust their "song&dance" accordingly.
Hijinks ensue.
It's worth noting that the obvious counter argument is that the iPad is already targeted at very close relatives of these apes. I doubt it'll take that much work to come up with a user interface that Great Apes and other primates can use.
Developing something for kids is not the same as developing something for adults.
Extrapolate that to developing software and GUI for apes, supposedly to match their needs and requests - when only a tiniest fraction of them can relate only the very basic concepts and words.
"Blue-Blue-Banana-Happy" is not really something one could consider software development documentation.
As to the last suggestion, the more varied the inhabitants of our society are, the more interesting that society will be. There is nothing inherently magical about being human.
"Interesting" != "Better"
Or even "good" most of the time. "May you live in interesting times" is not considered a curse for nothing.
Plenty of "interesting" people in jails, insane asylums, on the internet... Still wouldn't want 99.997% of them anywhere near me or my food.
And while there is no SINGLE thing that makes us magical there are MANY things which together make us special among primates AND animals.
The fact that we are communicating through the use of electrons right now, while other primates can barely comprehend using a rock to smash things, pretty much demonstrates how god damn special we are.
Apes on the other hand, are probably never going to have any sort of power over their genetic future unless they become intelligent enough to take control of their own destiny.
Small correction.
Intelligence has nothing to do with it. We do not live in a Noocracy.
Only way they would be able to exert ANY control of their destiny is if they would actually outnumber humans.
A notion that most humans may find a tad bit unacceptable.
After all, where were apes when we were building the world through sweat and blood? What did they ever do for us?
Besides Tarzan movies and AIDS?
Other than that, I completely agree with the rest of your post.
By making ourselves a master race and then "delegating" everyone else.
I am rather certain (above 90%) that you are not trolling, and that you are actually serious about your ideas and views.
Sadly, I am also quite certain that the issue of ape education and improvement, though being something that I am barely able to wright with a straight face, is a matter of great importance to you.
I say "sadly" cause it reminds me of the view that religious people have regarding their religious beliefs.
I.e. Not (really) open to discussion.
Now... I could argue the points where you are wrong (from understanding of human intellect at young age to understanding of the evolutionary process), where you didn't understand my point (Development is not an issue. Development for APES is.), or where you are bordering on WTF - but I really lack the time to be dragged in an argument about political rights of animals.
I would advise you though to read up on the subjects of evolution, ACTUAL intelligence of both humans and apes and the forms it takes.
I have a feeling that you are pushing your ideas mostly on faith and casually picked up news stories - which can be a dangerous thing just as any other sufficiently low quantity of knowledge.
...which is currently being occupied by humans.
Your position has been applied to many racist and sexist entitlements since the dawn of man. Have fun with that.
Again, you are reading me completely wrong.
Unfortunately, you are also making your comments from a position into which I simply can't gain insight.
So, I can't really understand where you got that racist/sexist bit from my comment above.
What I was implying is that you are pushing a position of "upgrading" apes mentally and physically through any means possible until they reach human levels of intelligence, expression and perhaps the quality of life.
And in the meanwhile we should start treating them as if they are on that level already. "Human rights" and all.
Which besides being utterly mad, on par with sending a clinically insane violent psychotic with a mind of a 4-year-old in a body of a grown man to a kindergarten, to learn and play with other children of his "age" - it is utterly and completely immoral thing to do to the apes.
Cause that road does not lead to an "Ape 2.0" or to a better quality of life for them. That is the road to human-like-apes.
If that does not set off the alarms for you, try this.
Instead of apes, think about all those shorter, fatter, less intelligent, not as attractive HUMANS and what would it be like if some "authority" decided to "upgrade them" all to the current standardized human.
Then multiply that by all the evolutionary steps the ape in question made from its last common ancestor it shares with the current humans.
In fact, it would be far more humane and moral to simply round up all apes and kill them all.
And then we can simply delegate some uglier and dumber humans to the position of human-like-apes.
Cause upgrading apes to human-like-apes would make the current apes extinct anyway.
Unless you are proposing that we provide them with a "lower species" by leaving some apes out of that ape-eugenics program - perhaps so that the human-like-apes can feel the joys of racism the way we never could?
Please read the following part of the parent post out loud and tell me it isn't even a tiny bit ambiguous.
It is a relatively simple process to program apps and change the icons of apps to lexigrams geared towards apes, and I find the idea of giving apes like Kanzi, as well as other apes that have worked extensively with primatologists, exposure to such technology as worthy enough to hold sufficient merit.
Much like learning a foreign language, if we teach all these exposed and inclined apes the same 'words' it isn't a huge leap to believe that in a few generations it could manifest itself as something that is passed on within the confines of each society of apes from generation to generation.
Even across species Kanzi the Bonobo picked up some ASL from watching videos of Koko the Gorilla. With a little determination on our part, this could be the start of something much greater.
Humans came up the hard way, but that doesn't mean that apes have to go that route.
Just to clarify, paragraphs above include:
- proposal for development of software, GUI and an alphabet aimed at apes.
- describing equipping apes with 21st century entertainment technology as "worthy enough to hold sufficient merit".
- inventing an "ape Esperanto", teaching it to apes - hoping it will catch on as their Lingua Simia,
- the following line: "Kanzi the Bonobo picked up some ASL from watching videos of Koko the Gorilla".
- and finally, suggestion that apes SHOULD aim for some not clearly defined position (Evolutionary? Cultural? Civilizational? Consumerist? Political?...) which is currently being occupied by humans.
Can't tell if serious...
If Progressive and Liberal ideas and policies were easy, they wouldn't *need* to be mandatory.
You're welcome.
I've accidentally quit caffeine cold turkey several times (not a big coffee drinker, used it strictly as a stimulant).
I would forget to have my "daily dose" after finishing whatever task that required me to stay awake and alert longer.
I.e. At the beginning of a vacation.
Splitting headaches, muscle and joint pains and generally a zombie-like behavior would last for about two days before I'd get back on my feet.
Switching to green tea, first as a "cool down" stimulant then switching to it completely, I don't have those issues anymore.
Sure, there's still caffeine in the tea but there is far less of it and I never reach my caffeine limit. So, I don't get the "buzz" but I do get the alertness.
Plus, I don't have the issues with dehydration as a decent cup of tea is still mostly water.
And if I want to or have to quit the tea too, i.e. I forget to take it with me to a place where they don't serve it - at worst I'll get a bit drowsy.
Also, I'm told that it's rather healthy.
Granted, if you are used to taking your caffeine through coke instead of coffee it may be harder than simply"deciding to switch".
Particularly in the summer, when most bars/restaurants/coffee shops don't serve tea - but everyone serves Coke. And coffee.
Bonus difficulty points if you are getting most of your supply from a local vending or coffee machine at work.
My solution is to order mineral water instead of coke (unless they serve green tea), and bringing my own supply of tea to work in a thermos bottle.
Or perhaps we need a way to reduce the human population to the longer term carrying capacity of the planet, which might just be far far below 5 billion... or nature will surely figure out a way to accomplish that for us.
Planet basically has no human capacity limit, that we could ever reach. Human civilization as we know it on the other hand...
And we are way beyond that 5 billion number you mention.
At this point the only way we can get back there is if we kill off 2 billion people, and then limit everyone in the world to a "one child per parent - no more, no less"-rule.
And then we can just lay back and relax as we slowly exterminate ourselves through such a breeding scheme as we need at least 2.1 children per couple - unless we start killing off boys and "uncoupled" humans.
Or unless we delegate breeding of those 0.1 babies to those "more suitable".
BTW, that also is an end to the human civilization as we know it.
As for nature... Well... it already has a solution for overpopulation. Death.
Now, humans being slightly allergic to death, I'm more of a fan of an idea where humans find solutions for their problems without the use of death.
And last time I checked, the only beings preoccupied with finding solutions to the problems of the humans are humans. Whodathunkit!
So basically what we actually need in order to solve our problem with the ACQUIREMENT AND THE DISTRIBUTION OF RESOURCES for an ever growing population of humans is - more problem solving humans.
And the only way we know so far for getting more of those is through getting more humans, and teaching them how to better solve problems.
You might say how that too is the nature's way of solving the problem for us, except this method actually requires that we get off our asses and... that kinda gets us into a whole other issue about what exactly is natural for us and all that.
By adapt as a species we mean by engineering solutions. Build stores of water, desalinate, some kind of preservation project. At worst case he was talking about relocating entire populations to more habitable places. His idea was mainly focused on some pacific island which modelling suggests would get swept away with a global warming sized ocean rise.
Well... that ain't really "as a species" anything. More like "them there brownie people should toughen up".
Is that economist per chance Australian?
Also, "mainly focused on some pacific island" just reads to me as more of "somebody else's problem" - a concept that does not exist when we are talking about global issues.
Which is something any economist who's been breathing the air on this planet for the last decade or so should be aware of.
Ultimately though I agree with the prognosis that any large scale relocation attempt can only really end in war. As it is refugee is a dirty enough word. I don't see our governments realistically opening up their borders to an entire small 3rd world nation.
Small third world nations are not really a problem.
Billions of people in Asia are. Future billion+ of people in Africa too. 70% of all humans live on those two continents.
Guess who has the best chance of feeling the effects of a global climate change, per capita.
Regardless what happens (global war, global famine, rampaging pandemics, global economic crises...) we are beyond the point where we can solve or even reduce the problems by sending aid packages.
We got actual global problems. You simply can't solve those one country or "world" at a time.
Remember couple of years back when we felt the tremors of a rising middle class in Asia through the global food prices?
It's one world.
Sticking our collective heads in the sand, pretending it is somebody else's problem... Sorry, but that really irks me.
Particularly from someone who is apparently enough of an authority in a (very) vaguely related field that they get to spew such nonsense in the media.
Authoritatively.
With our current population of 6bil, we are consuming about 1.4 Earths of water/food/energy. We are quickly depleting what we have. I don't think doubling the population is such a good idea.
One - there are ~7 billion humans living on Earth at the moment. 7+ if you ask UN instead of USA.
Two - are you REALLY trying to say that we are spending 140% of available resources of the planet?
Here's a fun experiment. Get a bag of chips or some other easily obtainable prepackaged food item.
Now try eating 140% of the contents of that single packet of food.
Can != Should
If these past decades since the world has been introduced to the Internet has taught us anything it is that Can == You better bloody believe it will happen.
As for doubling the population...
We are the only creatures on this planet who work on solving the problems of our ENTIRE RACE.
Regardless if you believe in "two heads are better than one" or in "the spark of genius" - more people is the solution for both.
Every additional billion humans means we acquire 20 million more geniuses.
Not to mention everyone else in the "above average" 25% (~1.75 billion at the moment) or EVERYONE when the problem actually requires physical instead of mental labor.
Just imagine what we could do with all those brains and all those brains and all those bodies!
The problems we could solve and fix.
The economist was arguing the exact opposite, that the global effort to change the lifestyle and energy sources of half the population of the world would be orders of magnitude more expensive than to simply adapt as a species and relocate or provide resources in some other means to people dispersed by global warming.
But I will have to go with "nonsense" on that diagnosis.
Haven't read the article, can't comment on the said economists motives but I am fairly sure that he/she IS making his/her arguments from an ignorant position and a with a highly specialized and limited outlook of the world.
First off, saying "half the population" indicates that he lives in some past age when the developed nations (ones who are responsible for the greater part of the human influence on the climate) were approximately one half of the world population.
Which is no longer the case. "Traditionally poor" continents of Asia and Africa amount to ~5 billion of the ~7 billion humans currently on this planet.
Second, rest assured that the poor nations would be the ones who would feel the effects of global warming the most.
Millions would likely die from hunger, wars caused by said hunger and health issues (disease and lack of medicine) caused by both.
Calculating the "cost" of change in developed nations energy policy merely in dollars, when it is clear to anyone who would take 5 minutes to meditate on the subject that the current policies would cost in lives, lost generations and even in those utterly immeasurable categories such as loss of culture and civilization indicates that the proponent of the "just send aid" has traded his/her moral compass for something more... quantifiable.
Then, there is the problem of "WTF?" in such a solution.
We can't adapt energy policy of developed nations with their (comparably) functioning economies and bureaucracies but at the same time it is a perfectly acceptable idea that we should be able "to simply adapt as a species"?
I'm guessing this will be accomplished through spontaneous mutation of chlorophyll cells in our bodies so that we can harvest the energy of the Sun, dispensing with that pesky habit of eating altogether?
Or perhaps by growing gills and webbed hands and feet so that we can live under water?
Then there is the utter lack of foresight. Which does not surprise me since the said economist is working with numbers from decades ago.
I.e. Is stuck in the past.
We don't need a solution for a world of 5, 6 or 7 billion people, with maybe half of them living in the developed nations.
We need an adaptable, scalable solution for at least 9 billion humans, with at least 7 billion of them living in the developing nations.
Which is where we will be 40 or so years down the road, just as the world's supply of oil nears the end of its economical use.
And saying to those 7 billion "Ah, just move somewhere else" basically means "Come, take my already strained resources - you're gonna take them by force anyway since you and yours outnumber me and mine by 4 to 1. And you've grown up in the society where human life is very cheap.".
So, unless we come up with cold fusion in the next decade or so we MUST start relying on renewable energy resources.
Cause "poor" of the world sure as hell will not. Can not.
At the same time they will be faced with increased population and dwindling resources - perfect conditions for declaring war.
On their cousins, on their neighbors, on the "wealthy", on those of a different color...
So, developed nations either come up with a solution for both energy and the climate crisis and give it to the developing nations OR be faced with the possibility of being on a losing side of a global war couple of decades down the road.
Not that there can be a winning side in a war whose goal is to manage couple of billion humans through reduction of their numbers.
It's just that some people have a lot less to lose.
Sorry, but that much space is more than enough for each person to house, clothe and feed themselves at the level expected for a person living in the early 21st century, WITHOUT the use of any technology invented in the last 2000 years.
Not to mention the advancements made in the last half a century or so.
Relax. Watch and read this.
We have a whole planet for ourselves. We just need to be a bit more rational in the use of all the resources at our disposal.
Also, a bit less effort in killing each other and a bit more invested in education NOW might prove highly useful when the population of poorest nations outnumbers the population of the richest by four to one.
40 or so years down the road.
What people who fall for the "they create jobs" meme fail to see is that they don't need a job, they need money. The job is just the means to the end, not the end itself.
A job is much, much more than just "a way to make money".
Being able to work for your own and your family's sustenance and improvement gives people a purpose in life, makes them proud of their own accomplishments and basically makes them MORE than mere consumers.
Which is what just giving them money makes them into.
Mind you, I am not speaking against government or anyone else helping out those in need or those unable to work or fully support themselves or their families through their work.
Personally, I believe that acts like that don't just make us more civilized but also "good". Or at least better.
Monetary help - good and often needed.
Sustaining and fulfilling work - much better.
Now if opening its package let out a recording of its death-squeal, that might turn some people off from pork...
Canned tuna would still sound the same.
Is that you Hank?
Because gleefully exclaiming that the money is worth the risk is probably an indicator of an unstable personality at best, if not a depressed/suicidal disorder.
Apparently, it is also highly likely that such a person uses Internet Explorer.