but my point was that if the poster can't see the urgency or validity of global climate change, it's unlikely he can understand the issue with non-native fish species
Maybe you ought to come up with new points then? It's quite disingenuous to compare an opinion with the concrete observable of depopulation of native species by an invasive species.
Well given that the Chinese carp situation in Michigan probably should be a more important priority for the US than hamstringing human civilization in the name of global warming, I really don't see the stupidity.
Hell, China was a MAJOR nation until the communist took it over. Then and only then, did it head downwards.
First, China had gone downhill for quite some time (since the 18th century under the Qing Dynasty). And how can one ignore the Japanese invasion of China or the incompetence and corruption of the foes of the Chinese Communist (particularly, of the Kuomintang) at that time?
Well, mathematics does have stuff, like cardinality beyond that of the real numbers, that can't possibly permeate the universe, merely because it's too big to do so. And there are mathematical statements that are true, but for which the proof can't be expressed in the information available to the known universe.
It "permeates" because it is the only tool we have to model natural phenomenon.
Any such tool, if it has any predictive power, would have or be math.
Numbers don't exist in reality, there are only quantities of things.
But anything that satifies the basic axioms of numbers ends up with all the properties of numbers - whether we bother to develop the mathematical machinery or not.
The things we observe may self organize into interesting structures with compelling mathematical models but the universe didn't perform any mathematics to arrive at that state.
Something might have performed mathematics - I can't rule out what I can't observe.
We can afford a social security twice as expensive.
Maybe "we" can, but we have to give up something for that.
Germany had half a trillion Euros available literally overnight when the banks needed to be bailed out, but we're seriously discussing over raising social security benefits a few Euros per month.
And why would you think that. What's more important? Having banks or slightly better social security benefits? My view is that if it is only a few euros, then it's not important and "we" can blow that off.
Money isn't the issue, and anyone trying to tell you that is pulling a fast one.
Only the ignorant would think that. The big problem is opportunity cost. There are other things one could obtain with those funds - such as a functioning society or productive industry that are more important.
one fanciful possibility that explains why mathematics seems to permeate our universe
How could math not permeate our universe? There has to be some sort of structure or priors. And once, you have that, you have something that math can work on. And once you have that, you have math permeating your universe.
In other words, Germany has the social safety net it can afford. This is economics in practice. You can't have everything, so you have to prioritize what you really want.
I find it very irritating some of the multinational manufacturers are now marketing products in Europe and the U.S. with the same brand name and same label, but in Europe (they) are free of toxic chemicals and in the U.S. they contain toxic chemicals
All chemicals are toxic in the right quantities and conditions. That label doesn't in itself mean anything. And just because Europe finds some application of chemicals to be "toxic" doesn't mean that I would or should find the same.
Is there any one of those 11 chemicals which should be treated any differently than it is now, just because we know that it is somewhat more dangerous for pregnant women than it was already known to be?
Actually, I think it depends on the environment. For example, I think the fundamental difference between rural and urban environments is survival versus status.
Re:Lots of resources will always be finite
on
Star Trek Economics
·
· Score: 1
rent seeking is a fundamental problem which it can not deal with
Markets enable competition. That is the obvious rebuttal. If you look at rent seeking today, it's dished out via government power. That's bypasses markets. No tool works as intended when it is deliberately broken.
This planet can sustain 1.5 billion humans, if they are all extremely careful.
I'd say that the current 7 billion seems quite sustainable even without that extreme care. Cheap sunlight seems the true limiting factor, and we're not even close.
Most pharmaceuticals, plastics, pesticides, and non-rusty metal are impossible w/o petroleum.
Expensive petroleum and petroleum substitutes work fine here.
Try to get a strawberry from Chile to Florida using nuclear fission.
It's not that hard to convert nuclear energy into burnable fuel, it's just more expensive than current approaches.
Slashdot Mirror
but my point was that if the poster can't see the urgency or validity of global climate change, it's unlikely he can understand the issue with non-native fish species
Maybe you ought to come up with new points then? It's quite disingenuous to compare an opinion with the concrete observable of depopulation of native species by an invasive species.
Right now, it's great for the lenders, because they've rigged the system so that most people have an artificial scarcity of money imposed upon them.
As it should be. Money that isn't scarce can't serve one of its roles as a store of value.
Well given that the Chinese carp situation in Michigan probably should be a more important priority for the US than hamstringing human civilization in the name of global warming, I really don't see the stupidity.
Hell, China was a MAJOR nation until the communist took it over. Then and only then, did it head downwards.
First, China had gone downhill for quite some time (since the 18th century under the Qing Dynasty). And how can one ignore the Japanese invasion of China or the incompetence and corruption of the foes of the Chinese Communist (particularly, of the Kuomintang) at that time?
There's also informal checks and balances, particularly between businesses and government.
If lenders refuse to make markets, the government (or the Fed) should step in and make them.
Quite right. Lenders refuse to just give me vast piles of money with no strings attached. Government can step in and make them. It's great for me!
There are an infinite number of universes with entropy so large that nothing but chaos exists.
Now all you have to do is find one of these universes to prove your assertion.
Well, mathematics does have stuff, like cardinality beyond that of the real numbers, that can't possibly permeate the universe, merely because it's too big to do so. And there are mathematical statements that are true, but for which the proof can't be expressed in the information available to the known universe.
Citation please
I got that reasoning from here.
I will note that if you have non-trivial things in your universe, like intelligence, then you have some sort of structure or priors.
But how do two distinct points in space-time know to use the same mathematics?
Maybe that's not the case, but we can't observe stuff that uses different mathematics from us.
It "permeates" because it is the only tool we have to model natural phenomenon.
Any such tool, if it has any predictive power, would have or be math.
Numbers don't exist in reality, there are only quantities of things.
But anything that satifies the basic axioms of numbers ends up with all the properties of numbers - whether we bother to develop the mathematical machinery or not.
The things we observe may self organize into interesting structures with compelling mathematical models but the universe didn't perform any mathematics to arrive at that state.
Something might have performed mathematics - I can't rule out what I can't observe.
We can afford a social security twice as expensive.
Maybe "we" can, but we have to give up something for that.
Germany had half a trillion Euros available literally overnight when the banks needed to be bailed out, but we're seriously discussing over raising social security benefits a few Euros per month.
And why would you think that. What's more important? Having banks or slightly better social security benefits? My view is that if it is only a few euros, then it's not important and "we" can blow that off.
Money isn't the issue, and anyone trying to tell you that is pulling a fast one.
Only the ignorant would think that. The big problem is opportunity cost. There are other things one could obtain with those funds - such as a functioning society or productive industry that are more important.
one fanciful possibility that explains why mathematics seems to permeate our universe
How could math not permeate our universe? There has to be some sort of structure or priors. And once, you have that, you have something that math can work on. And once you have that, you have math permeating your universe.
In other words, Germany has the social safety net it can afford. This is economics in practice. You can't have everything, so you have to prioritize what you really want.
I find it very irritating some of the multinational manufacturers are now marketing products in Europe and the U.S. with the same brand name and same label, but in Europe (they) are free of toxic chemicals and in the U.S. they contain toxic chemicals
All chemicals are toxic in the right quantities and conditions. That label doesn't in itself mean anything. And just because Europe finds some application of chemicals to be "toxic" doesn't mean that I would or should find the same.
Keep me updated in case they ever do change the definitions of correlation and causation. I want to be on top of this!
Is there any one of those 11 chemicals which should be treated any differently than it is now, just because we know that it is somewhat more dangerous for pregnant women than it was already known to be?
Yea, it's the causation one.
Your custom spaceship will only be a luxury until someone figures out how to make a copy cheaply.
How will they manage that? They need that information first. And you can always procure another, one-off spaceship, if the old one gets copied.
The true currency is always status.
Actually, I think it depends on the environment. For example, I think the fundamental difference between rural and urban environments is survival versus status.
rent seeking is a fundamental problem which it can not deal with
Markets enable competition. That is the obvious rebuttal. If you look at rent seeking today, it's dished out via government power. That's bypasses markets. No tool works as intended when it is deliberately broken.
Overpopulation is only a problem in India and China.
Overpopulation is a problem on three continents: Asia, Africa, and South America.
This planet can sustain 1.5 billion humans, if they are all extremely careful.
I'd say that the current 7 billion seems quite sustainable even without that extreme care. Cheap sunlight seems the true limiting factor, and we're not even close.
Most pharmaceuticals, plastics, pesticides, and non-rusty metal are impossible w/o petroleum.
Expensive petroleum and petroleum substitutes work fine here.
Try to get a strawberry from Chile to Florida using nuclear fission.
It's not that hard to convert nuclear energy into burnable fuel, it's just more expensive than current approaches.
Indeed: it is well-known that population growth is logistic
It's not logistic. Die-offs are possible.
So you have any other protips on how we can politicize a rock on Mars?