You're right, I mispoke; I'm not an economist. It's easy to miss the meaning of peak oil when talking in economic terms. Yes, demand will fall. But the thing to remember is that in this usage "demand" is a technical terms.
It's not that less people will want the convenience of driving to work, it's that they will be priced out of the market. Demand in terms of people who *can* buy gas will fall. Demand in terms of how much gas is desired over how much gas is available will increase.
>>I wouldn't be surprised to see $20/gallon gasoline (in today's dollars) in my lifetime because in 50 years I think gasoline cars will largely be a hobby and it will basically be a specialty product with demand even lower than today.
Yes, gas cars will probably be antique collector's items in either our lifetimes or those of our near descendants, maybe a generation or two. I wonder how 6+ billion people will get along without oil and oil derivatives.
In the sense that there will always be residual oil somewhere on the earth, you are right. However your statement is misleading in terms of using oil as a fuel; someday, the cost of getting the oil will exceed the value (in terms of heating a house, fueling a car, oiling a machine, what have you).
>>Oil in the ground is not like a gas tank where you pump it out and Boom! it's gone one day. It just gets more and more expensive to pump it.
Yes, but not only will it get more expensive per unit, it will simultaneously become *rarer*. So not only will prices rise, but production will fall. It's not like everone just has to get used to higher prices - most of us will eventually HAVE to do without, because even if we CAN afford to buy a $20 gallon of gasoline, it's not available, Period, unless you're a member of an ever smaller group of "haves". Oh, and while oil gets more expensive, and more rare, demand will rise. We're not just talking about peak production; there IS a limited amount of oil, and even if we never do extract the last drop, it's going to "run out" in the sense that *you* and *I* can't get it. And, our approach to that point is faster as time passes.
>>What will happen is that fossil fules will get progressively more expensive until cheaper alternatives become less expensive than they are, and certain uses will gradually switch over.
Not to split hairs (okay, to split hairs) actually what will happen is that fossil fuels will get progressively more expensive until they are impractical, and then asymtotically approaching impossible to use due to availability/cost/yourmetrichere. Now, if we collectively had some smarts, we would realize that the cost of (not so) blue sky research on alternative energy *now* will save us buttloads of money on fuel because we will have to do it anyway, and if we do it before oil is a $500 / barrel, we'll save all the extra money of switching before we have to instead of only when we're forced to. (grumble grumble big oil grumble)
>>There's not going to be some magic day where Boom! THE OIL IS GONE OMG WE'RE DOOMED WHAAAA.
If I were to infer that you lean right politically, would I be barking up the wrong tree?
>>Everything will "just work out", as it always does in matters of economics.
Well, if by "work out" you mean that a new level will be sought in terms of price, production, availability and alternatives, you're stating a tautology in terms of economics. If you mean that there's no chance of serious economic hardship for the whole world, including real fiscal pain in the first world and possible life-death issues in the third world, I'm sorry but I have to contradict you there (if that's what you meant). The richest of the rich will continue to live in comfort, as they always have and always will. It's the other 99.999999% of us (or our grandkids) who will face real difficulty.
The Post-Oil period won't be the end of the world, but there are serious - as in, failure is possible - challenges to overcome if we expect to continue to live anywhere near as conveniently as we do. Cheap oil moves goods from cheap producers to the markets, cheap oil keeps us mobile, etc. We're racing toward a huge question mark. To say that it isn't an issue is foolhardy at best. There's no need to play it off like the concern is only felt by CrAzY lOoNiE fReAkIeS!!1! It is an issue. The sky is not falling; it's just rain. Lots and lots of rain... no need to insult the ark-planners. You'll be glad they were working on it someday.
some buildings sprawl enough that you get interior rooms.. there's another room/corridor whatever between the room and the external wall.
I thought of this idea myself a year or so ago (although I see I am ~13 years too late anyway according to another poster:).. my idea was a little different, actually it was based in science fiction... I was imagining a high population density city, where the buildings were so large that most units wouldn't be able to have windows. My idea was to have a small viewport on the outside wall, with optical amplification and a set of pinhole outlets to go to each receiving room. That way interior dwellers would be able to look at a pane of glass and see the outside world, without it being a projected image or a digital representation. You could look through a telescope and check out the horizon, or push a button and have it go back to a blank wall (covered in glass).
That's very wise. You're hitting the nail on the head.
I personally admit that sometimes I act like a zealot; I do it when I confront religious zealots. I am not savvy enough to argue from first principles with someone who argues from religious faith. I don't think it's good, I just think it's less bad than leaving their viewpoint unopposed. Which isn't to say that I think their views are not valid; I think they are. But I think they're often misapplied. I can see how two wrongs don't make a right, and that maybe when someone says something obviously trollish I should laugh it off-- but the national atmosphere in the US since the day after 9/11 has me thinking that people say a lot of things, and that even false or weak statements can be accepted if unopposed. I don't have the chops to push back against the conservative republican movement, so I like to imagine that I can have a social impact by keeping my liberalness "loud and proud", at least here.
Also, I think some of this behavior is primate- or mammal-territorial.. I think of slashdot as a place where I'm (somewhat) shielded from people who hate science, hate liberals, hate nerds. And I feel that in a very small way I can perpetuate that safe space for people like me by rebutting things that infringe on it. I don't go out of my way to bash the religious, but I *do* go out of my way to confound people who say things that bash liberals or scientists, because I identify with those groups.
I believe that religion is a useful and meaningful part of human knowledge, like philosophy or science or history.
Blah! I have to leave work now.
I have a gmail invite, you can have it if you want.
Yeah, it strikes me that he just wants geeks to imagine what if "God" proved it's own existence. It's like an old man exposing himself to kids - there's no redeeming value.
Suppose that the bible turns out to be an encoded message which reads "this is a metaphor, do not interpret literally, keep out of reach of idiots." I know I could handle it, but I know some people who couldn't.
Suppose the Pope revealed to the world that religion is no longer relevant because God *used* to exist, but he got sick of all the crap people were doing in his name, so he replaced himself with a small shell script and willed himself nonexistant. Suppose it! Woooo!!
Suppose that the real nature of religion is to promote social harmony by telling a "noble lie", but it's been twisted into a corrupt power structure that uses faith as an excuse to commit the very acts the religion was created to prevent. Suppose!
Suppose Jesus shows up at your door and says "Hi, I'm Jesus Christ. You may remember me from such religions as Catholicism and Puritanism. I'm here to tell you that Hare Krishna is the One True Religion. I was close, but due to the nature of spiritual introspection, the closer I got to the truth, the more I misunderstood it. Now I walk the earth spreading the truth of Hare Krishna until I work off my bad karma."
Pat Robertson sure couldn't handle it, but I know people who could.
Bill Moyers: Theocrats and ideologues in charge of US government. Moyers: For the first time in our history, ideology and theology hold a monopoly of power in Washington. Theology asserts propositions that cannot be proven true; ideologues hold stoutly to a worldview despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality. When ideology and theology couple, their offspring are not always bad, but they are always blind. And there is the danger: voters and politicians alike, oblivious to the facts.
I'm not offended that people may not be convinced that dark matter exists. Dark matter isn't proven, and no one said it was. I'm offended that you and AC are trying to play off dark matter as superstition.
All of the current theories may be wrong. But you're positing that we have "no idea". That's bullshit and that's what I'm pissed about. There's a world of difference between "We aren't sure" and "we have no idea". There WAS a point at which we had "no idea", no theory, no reasonable guesses. However, now we do have "an idea". That idea is dark matter. You don't have to agree. I'm not an astrophysicist myself. But if you want to pretend that we have no clue, no guess, no information at all, then you're just plain wrong. Period.
I don't insist that everone agree on the cause. You're positing that we have no idea. That's bullshit. Now you're saying that I'm insisting that everyone accept dark matter as fact. That's an error on your part. I never said "Dark matter is the true explanation!!!!11" I said you and the AC are wrong in your assertion that we have "no idea". Do you understand the difference?
I don't know if you're a religious.
>>It's not that I'm a believer, it's that I'm cynical.
Good, be cynical! That's great! Be a skeptic! I am too. If you say that we're not sure what's causing the phenomena, that's totally wise and good. But don't say that we "have not idea", because we do have an idea. That idea is dark matter. Is one of the theories true? Are any of them? Maybe or maybe not. Saying that we have no idea is saying that we do not have the concept of dark matter.
>>So... wait. Given my example, let's say you ask me what's in the box, and I say, "seems to be something small and hard.
Look at what you wrote, right there. Do we have any idea what's in the box? "something small and hard". Yes, we have an idea. Do we know Exactly what's in the box, no we do not, and I have been consistent. You on the other hand, just seem to be pushing a bias.
>>And I feel the same sort of annoyance at people who believe everything written in a scientific journal as that annoyance you feel towards those who believe everything written in the bible. Yes, even scientists can be wrong. And yes, there are disagreements between scientists. Dude.
Gee, thanks for telling me what I already know. Would you kindly point out where I said "Dark matter is unquestionably true" or "scientists never make mistakes"? I'm ticked because you're not making any statements about the merit of the science, you're just poo-pooing it. You STILL haven't stated what your point was, and I still think you're just being contrary because you feel like it. So for the last time, do you have a point? Cause the only thing I see you doing is implying that science has no idea whatsoever what's going on. If you meant that science is not sure, say that! It's 100% true and I won't argue with that. If you want to keep implying that science is trying to hide something, I'm going to keep flaming you, because that's not skepticism, that's right wing fearmongering.
>>So... wait. Given my example, let's say you ask me what's in the box, and I say, "seems to be something small and hard. Not too heavy, though." You insist again that I tell you, specifically, what's actually in the box. You demand an answer and I say, "Dude, I have no idea."
If you want to conflate uncertainty with total lack of insight, have a ball. There's a big difference between "we have no idea" and "we're not sure". So what is it? do you have a point? If it's just that dark matter is not the final word, then I'm going to be underwhelmed, because that was never in contention.
>>For all your complaining that everyone is religious, you don't know me. You're the one jumping to conclusions. You're the one insisting that everyone in the world agrees with you about substances exhibiting seemingly magical properties
And the coup de grace.. Know you? I never said you were re
Given this example, would it be fair to say that "I don't know what's in the box"?
If there is something in the box, and you don't know what it is, then it would be appropriate to say that you cannot give a convincing description of it's contents. But it would be foolhardy to say that you have "no idea" what is in the box. If you feel it moving around when you shake it, you have at least one idea about the contents - they act as though they have mass. If you want to say that we aren't sure what dark matter is or sure how it acts, that's accurate. If you want to say that we have "no idea, no idea at all" about this phenomenon we describe as dark matter, then you are wrong. We know that something, whether it is an undiscovered particle or a whole system of forces acting like invisible matter, is exerting forces on visible matter. The fact is that we do have "an idea" of what is going on. We have theories that attempt to explain the observations. We do not have certainty, but we do have "an idea".
>>Given this example, would it be fair to say that "I don't know what's in the box"?
Because knowledge implies certainty in some degree, that would be fair. But it would be wrong to say that you have "no idea" what is in the box.
You seem to be awfully keen to prove something. What's your point? Before I start flaming you in earnest, are you trying to posit that science is not valid, or that dark matter is a fig leaf created by scientists who can't accept their lack of absolute objective knowledge? Correct me if I'm wrong in what I'm about to say, but from where I stand it looks like you're just trying to cast doubt on the idea of dark matter because you have some bias against science.
Actually, screw politeness. The AC was being a punk. I think you're just being a punk too. Prove me wrong, state your point, if you have one. It obviously has to do with getting someone to admit that "we don't know" something. What? out with it! Are you going to ask us to be jehova's witnesses or something? I don't know what you think you're accomplishing, but its having the effect of making you look like a church apologist. The AC was wrong, and he's an ass. What purpose is there for you to try to back him up? You're like the girl in my middle school who would respond to everything with "why". I have to go. "why?" because I have to catch my bus. "why?" because it's gonna leave and I need to go home. "why?" because I need to eat dinner. "why?" because I'm hungry. "why?" because I haven't eaten for 4 hours. "why?" because I was busy. "why?"
Dude, you're like that girl. Here's a tip - pestering ability is not wisdom. You're just being a prick. Get lost, hoser.
Yes, religion vs science discussions are often pitched battles here.
>>If you're attacking religion at least get your facts strait.
Often the religious people don't know anything about Aquinas or Descartes. They don't know about philosophy or ethics. They just want to disparage science. These people are poor partners for level headed conversation. Making assertions in a controlled, adult manner won't be repaid with thoughful responses. Instead they spin and spit venom.
>>The pro-religious posters on/. don't bring up these "scientific" errors, why do stubborn pro-science folks bring up layman religion that has nothing to do with real religion?
I can't say I'm following you 100%. But you seem to more interested in an exchange of ideas than in pushing your view, and that's my big issue. In the context of this exchange, I can tell you that I think the "science bots" attack the religion in cases where the other person has already showed that they will not be swayed or back down from an erroneous or offensive assertion on the basis of their religion or faith. Or, if the person is just trolling, the attack on the religion might just be a means to attacking the person.
Also, religion and science and philosophy are all very deep subjects with many layers and nuances. Frequently oversimplifications are made just for the sake of appearance. Evolution is attacked in this way constantly. Religion is also applied incorrectly sometimes. The spiritual teachings of Christianity, IMHO, have intrinsic value. However, I consider a literal interpretation of Genesis to border on idiocy. When I dismiss religion as superstition, it's because I've concluded that the person I'm talking to thinks that reality is a function of the whims of magical ghosts. If I'm discussing religion as a way of connecting with other people or ones own nature (which isn't often) then I know we're not talking about Santa and the Easter Bunny, but about humanity.
Wow, I sure rambled. Oh well. I guess I'm saying that people who think the earth is 6000 years old and use that as the basis for arguing anything falsifiable are fools or worse, and they draw attacks on their religion be being inappropriate.
And of course sometimes people attack religion as a shortcut - you believe X and X is silly so you must be wrong about Y - and that's not so great. In cases where someone is just bashing science or scientists, sometimes turnabout is fair play. Of course it's better if one can just say "Look, you said ABC, but ABC is false because of JKL and QRS and VWX", but often (so often) people take positions whose message isn't factual, but emotional, and that's when the fireworks begin. The AC had a tone of this in his post; he said nothing about politics, but his message evokes the political stage of left and right. I could post on ChristianScienceMonitor that "Bush's claims to be directed by God indicates psychosis not faith", but I'd never win the debate. It would be a flamewar in seconds if they didn't delete the comment outright. There's more at issue than just my assertion that Bush is incorrect to assert that "God" whispered in his ear. Its a case of coloring the forum with an undertone of presumptions. No one is truly neutral (no one) and everyone lives their life with partial knowledge. When people speak in winks and nudges, they have already given up their claim to pseudo-objectivity. They've taken a side, accepted their subjectivity without trying to grasp the subjective truth of the other side. And when they try to push their subjectivity as objective, that's offensive. When I see people doing that, I dig my heels in - I guess I could go all socratic on them, but it would be lost on most of them (by them I mean trolls, I do not mean religious people in general).
You're blurring the distinction between lack of knowledge and lack of certainty. We "have an idea". We don't have certainty. Which is why the phenomena is being investigated.
Every time science studies something, someone somewhere plays it up that science is ignorant and backwards because "those scientists are now finding out that they don't know everything". Which is idiocy for several reasons, but this article isn't about religion so they're offtopic.
>>...would you argue with that. I mean, loosely, that's the deal, right? In other words, we don't know.
Loosely, I would say that you have oversimplified two important facts out of your summary in order to fit your bias. Fact 1 is that we can indeed detect dark matter, the motion of matter in space as if there were matter which is not optically visible, it how we detect it. Fact 2, which is subtle, is that the "unknown phenomena" wasn't named "dark matter" arbitrarily. They didn't come up with the name and then create the theory - they came up with the theory based on the data, and then named it. Your version implies that the scientists applied the name without any idea whether or not it was relevant. But the reality is the opposite - they came up with a theory to explain the phenomena, THEN named it.
You're pushing to dismiss the concept of dark matter on the grounds that it's unconfirmed. Because it's unconfirmed, I fully understand that you may wish to attribute the phenomena to other causes. That's your prerogative. But there's no disproof of the theory so far, so whether or not I believe it, saying that it's "wrong" is unsupported.
Do we know? You didn't specify the subject of our knowledge. Do we know that there are places in space where the matter we know and understand to 9 significant figures acts differently than we expect it to? Yes, we know that. Do we know how to synthesize this phenomena in a lab? That we do not know. But your original implication that we "have no idea" what's going on is incorrect. And you seem much more interested in taking some kind of anti-science stance than in accepting that there is still work to be done in the field. You seem to want to back up the AC's position that science is some kind of religion, and more specifically, that dark matter is the equivalent of a deity, which is profoundly retarded.
It's crystal clear that the AC's position is based entirely on his anti-secular or anti-science view, and is not only a fool by slashdot standards, but would be laughed off his milk crate if he ever tried to explain his point to a group of laypeople.
>>It kills me how people seem to think religion means an automatic closed mindedness.
The problem isn't that everyone who is religious has a closed mind; there are religious people with open minds (even more now that it won't get your burned for heresy). The problem is that some people, who are *very* closed minded use religion as an excuse to believe- or not believe - arbitrary things. I can't say for sure whether these bottom of the barrel "I'm right no matter what" types are products of religion or are merely drawn to it, but I can say that they annoy me, that they fester unchecked in many places, and that they successfully supplant knowledge of reality with fantasy and falsehood to further their agendas.
>>That'a matter for discussion but Religion most certainly does not mean an automatic close minded approach.
True enough in an academic sense, but in the US at least, church and politics are closely tied, and "faith" is frequently used to close people's minds to one thing and/or focus their minds on another thing. I'm not by this saying that religion exists only for that purpose (real religion is imho not about that) but that in practice, it happens, and in my experience, a lot all the time.
>>There is even a school of thought that says without Christianity a lot of Scientific discoveries would have been a really late in coming. Since it's largely respobsible for driving out superstion in a lot of cultures.
Drove out superstition? So, leprechauns are superstition, but angels aren't? Looks to me like christianity replaced one superstition with another. Christianity may (for the sake of argument) be a more advanced form of superstition than faeries and elves and dwarves, but it's still not literal. One may be able to "interpret" religion to find guidance with your life, but the literal view is blatantly superstitious. How is one god better than 10? How are two magical, hidden worlds more real than ghosts walking this world? Sorry to have to ask you that, but I find it outrageously foolish to state that today's religion is less absurd than yesterday's just because the flavor changed.
>>can't see but it is there and its all powerful, honestly ! >>dark matter is just another word for "we have no idea"
Wow, get a grip. 1), dark matter is not visible to the eye, but neither are x-rays. Invisible != Undetectable. 2), dark matter is not "all powerful." I can't even guess what you meant to imply. It's conjectured that dark matter exerts a force, not that it flies around like a genie granting wishes. 3), dark matter is just another word for "we found an anomaly, and our observations lead us to believe this model may explain that anomaly." 4) extra irony points for accusing science of using a "god of the gaps" approach because they discovered something new and put a name to it and are researching it. Clue on line 1, calling AC, clue on line 1.. please pick up.
Parent is a perfect example of reactionary political slop masquerading as relevant opinion. I sure hope the AC was just trolling, because if that's genuine ignorance, I fear for the future of our species. One redeeming quality though.. I'm sure our friend the AC didn't realize this, but implying that dark matter is a foil for ignorance by comparing it to god (can't see but it is there and its all powerful, honestly !) implies that the AC thinks god is a foil for ignorance. (I know he didn't use the word "god" explicitly, but what else could he be referring to? Root?:) doesn't fit.)
Once again an offtopic comment with no redeeming intellectual or informational value is modded +interesting by conservative mods who just want to rub their creationist, anti-rationalist views in the face of a technocratic forum. Mod parent down, down doobee down, doo wa.
That looks like a cool product. When I read the page you linked, I saw "Completely invulnerable to hacking", and I thought "h4w h4w h4w", just like that, with numbers and in italics.
Sorry, I've been channeling Steven Wright since wednesday. Which is really strange because he's not dead. And may be why I'm not funny when I do it.
He's testy? Look at your post. You're playing this as an emotional issue from the start. Nothing in his response was inflammatory or rash, and he didn't say or even imply that you are "stupid".
Your original post is full of unnecessary drama. Calamity and woe, in caps? Please. Testy? Blind Rage? If you're on the fence anyway, why are you making such a big deal out of this? Do you get off on bashing scientists and drawing people's emotions out with playground antics? What do you think that says about you?
Really, what's flamebait about KTD's post? He agreed that evolution is theory, he voiced respect for the other poster, and he made some bland statements of opinion without attacking anyone.
I like how you can't tell the difference between an argument and an observation. He didn't say "ATN is wrong", he said "ATN is a loon". But don't let that stop you from using a forum on Global Warming to push creationism and theism.
Did you know that there are forums where people WANT to discuss the things you're talking about? Maybe you would be more welcome if you stayed ontopic.
Well ATN, I guess you can stop worrying about the big bad nerds having opinions that differ from yours, the GOP is here to moderate. (Hey, not that it needed to be modded up. But Overrated is just a bitches way out.. no metamoderation and no reason given. Come on, GOP, at least have the balls to call me out on whatever otherworldly issue you take with my comment.)
>>If you would perhaps be so kind as to engage brain, you would realise that not all Christians believe the Creation theory exactly as written.
Before you tell someone else to get the mote out of their eye, take the beam out of your own. His first words were "Depends on which "christian" point of view." He was obviously railing at one loudmouth in particular, not the whole religion.
As for the rest of your post, you're welcome to your opinions, beliefs, faith, whatever. I'm not going to try to argue you out of your beliefs. I will state firmly and unequivocably that I disagree with you on the topic of religion. I do this not to rub my beliefs in your face, but because I am tired of seeing science put down as 'reactionary' and 'anti-religion'; I have my beliefs in advance and in absence of challenges to them. If mystically minded people want to discuss supernatural topics, far be it from me to stop them. Even if they do it here. But when such people assert that science is invalid because science and mysticism contradict each other, *then* I will respond with arguments.
In short, have what beliefs you want. I will also believe what I want. If our beliefs happen to contradict one another's, I give you fair warning that an attempt on your part to convince me that my beliefs are wrong on the grounds that they contradict yours will be met on my part by whatever grips me - laughter, argument, the cold shoulder, whatever - and you have been fairly warned that I disagree and that I am able and willing to argue.
ATN, can you understand that to many of the people who read this site, your initial comment was itself flamebait? And the responses aren't flamebait, they're flames.. as in, what comes back to you when you flamebait. Trolling for Jesus is still trolling.
>>but of course none of these clearly flaimbait comments are going to get modded as flaimbait because it's okay to troll it up if it's against a christian points of view.
OOOOhhh, now I get it.. everyone everywhere should get on their knees for your beliefs, but you should be able to go anywhere anytime and make snide comments without fear of being confronted? Give me a break.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not that less people will want the convenience of driving to work, it's that they will be priced out of the market. Demand in terms of people who *can* buy gas will fall. Demand in terms of how much gas is desired over how much gas is available will increase.
>>I wouldn't be surprised to see $20/gallon gasoline (in today's dollars) in my lifetime because in 50 years I think gasoline cars will largely be a hobby and it will basically be a specialty product with demand even lower than today.
Yes, gas cars will probably be antique collector's items in either our lifetimes or those of our near descendants, maybe a generation or two. I wonder how 6+ billion people will get along without oil and oil derivatives.
Of course we will. How painful that adaptation is is in our hands.
In the sense that there will always be residual oil somewhere on the earth, you are right. However your statement is misleading in terms of using oil as a fuel; someday, the cost of getting the oil will exceed the value (in terms of heating a house, fueling a car, oiling a machine, what have you).
>>Oil in the ground is not like a gas tank where you pump it out and Boom! it's gone one day. It just gets more and more expensive to pump it.
Yes, but not only will it get more expensive per unit, it will simultaneously become *rarer*. So not only will prices rise, but production will fall. It's not like everone just has to get used to higher prices - most of us will eventually HAVE to do without, because even if we CAN afford to buy a $20 gallon of gasoline, it's not available, Period, unless you're a member of an ever smaller group of "haves". Oh, and while oil gets more expensive, and more rare, demand will rise. We're not just talking about peak production; there IS a limited amount of oil, and even if we never do extract the last drop, it's going to "run out" in the sense that *you* and *I* can't get it. And, our approach to that point is faster as time passes.
>>What will happen is that fossil fules will get progressively more expensive until cheaper alternatives become less expensive than they are, and certain uses will gradually switch over.
Not to split hairs (okay, to split hairs) actually what will happen is that fossil fuels will get progressively more expensive until they are impractical, and then asymtotically approaching impossible to use due to availability/cost/yourmetrichere. Now, if we collectively had some smarts, we would realize that the cost of (not so) blue sky research on alternative energy *now* will save us buttloads of money on fuel because we will have to do it anyway, and if we do it before oil is a $500 / barrel, we'll save all the extra money of switching before we have to instead of only when we're forced to. (grumble grumble big oil grumble)
>>There's not going to be some magic day where Boom! THE OIL IS GONE OMG WE'RE DOOMED WHAAAA.
If I were to infer that you lean right politically, would I be barking up the wrong tree?
>>Everything will "just work out", as it always does in matters of economics.
Well, if by "work out" you mean that a new level will be sought in terms of price, production, availability and alternatives, you're stating a tautology in terms of economics. If you mean that there's no chance of serious economic hardship for the whole world, including real fiscal pain in the first world and possible life-death issues in the third world, I'm sorry but I have to contradict you there (if that's what you meant). The richest of the rich will continue to live in comfort, as they always have and always will. It's the other 99.999999% of us (or our grandkids) who will face real difficulty.
The Post-Oil period won't be the end of the world, but there are serious - as in, failure is possible - challenges to overcome if we expect to continue to live anywhere near as conveniently as we do. Cheap oil moves goods from cheap producers to the markets, cheap oil keeps us mobile, etc. We're racing toward a huge question mark. To say that it isn't an issue is foolhardy at best. There's no need to play it off like the concern is only felt by CrAzY lOoNiE fReAkIeS!!1! It is an issue. The sky is not falling; it's just rain. Lots and lots of rain... no need to insult the ark-planners. You'll be glad they were working on it someday.
I thought of this idea myself a year or so ago (although I see I am ~13 years too late anyway according to another poster:) .. my idea was a little different, actually it was based in science fiction... I was imagining a high population density city, where the buildings were so large that most units wouldn't be able to have windows. My idea was to have a small viewport on the outside wall, with optical amplification and a set of pinhole outlets to go to each receiving room. That way interior dwellers would be able to look at a pane of glass and see the outside world, without it being a projected image or a digital representation. You could look through a telescope and check out the horizon, or push a button and have it go back to a blank wall (covered in glass).
i suppose you flame off whenever you see teh ?
+1, obligatory
8)
that is the best position I have ever heard. Thanks for the meme, can't wait to share it.
At least you know when you're beat. Now, it only you could learn to make a graceful exit.
I personally admit that sometimes I act like a zealot; I do it when I confront religious zealots. I am not savvy enough to argue from first principles with someone who argues from religious faith. I don't think it's good, I just think it's less bad than leaving their viewpoint unopposed. Which isn't to say that I think their views are not valid; I think they are. But I think they're often misapplied. I can see how two wrongs don't make a right, and that maybe when someone says something obviously trollish I should laugh it off-- but the national atmosphere in the US since the day after 9/11 has me thinking that people say a lot of things, and that even false or weak statements can be accepted if unopposed. I don't have the chops to push back against the conservative republican movement, so I like to imagine that I can have a social impact by keeping my liberalness "loud and proud", at least here.
Also, I think some of this behavior is primate- or mammal-territorial .. I think of slashdot as a place where I'm (somewhat) shielded from people who hate science, hate liberals, hate nerds. And I feel that in a very small way I can perpetuate that safe space for people like me by rebutting things that infringe on it. I don't go out of my way to bash the religious, but I *do* go out of my way to confound people who say things that bash liberals or scientists, because I identify with those groups.
I believe that religion is a useful and meaningful part of human knowledge, like philosophy or science or history.
Blah! I have to leave work now.
I have a gmail invite, you can have it if you want.
Suppose that the bible turns out to be an encoded message which reads "this is a metaphor, do not interpret literally, keep out of reach of idiots." I know I could handle it, but I know some people who couldn't.
Suppose the Pope revealed to the world that religion is no longer relevant because God *used* to exist, but he got sick of all the crap people were doing in his name, so he replaced himself with a small shell script and willed himself nonexistant. Suppose it! Woooo!!
Suppose that the real nature of religion is to promote social harmony by telling a "noble lie", but it's been twisted into a corrupt power structure that uses faith as an excuse to commit the very acts the religion was created to prevent. Suppose!
Suppose Jesus shows up at your door and says "Hi, I'm Jesus Christ. You may remember me from such religions as Catholicism and Puritanism. I'm here to tell you that Hare Krishna is the One True Religion. I was close, but due to the nature of spiritual introspection, the closer I got to the truth, the more I misunderstood it. Now I walk the earth spreading the truth of Hare Krishna until I work off my bad karma."
Pat Robertson sure couldn't handle it, but I know people who could.
Bill Moyers: Theocrats and ideologues in charge of US government. Moyers: For the first time in our history, ideology and theology hold a monopoly of power in Washington. Theology asserts propositions that cannot be proven true; ideologues hold stoutly to a worldview despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality. When ideology and theology couple, their offspring are not always bad, but they are always blind. And there is the danger: voters and politicians alike, oblivious to the facts.
All of the current theories may be wrong. But you're positing that we have "no idea". That's bullshit and that's what I'm pissed about. There's a world of difference between "We aren't sure" and "we have no idea". There WAS a point at which we had "no idea", no theory, no reasonable guesses. However, now we do have "an idea". That idea is dark matter. You don't have to agree. I'm not an astrophysicist myself. But if you want to pretend that we have no clue, no guess, no information at all, then you're just plain wrong. Period.
I don't insist that everone agree on the cause. You're positing that we have no idea. That's bullshit. Now you're saying that I'm insisting that everyone accept dark matter as fact. That's an error on your part. I never said "Dark matter is the true explanation!!!!11" I said you and the AC are wrong in your assertion that we have "no idea". Do you understand the difference?
I don't know if you're a religious.
>>It's not that I'm a believer, it's that I'm cynical.
Good, be cynical! That's great! Be a skeptic! I am too. If you say that we're not sure what's causing the phenomena, that's totally wise and good. But don't say that we "have not idea", because we do have an idea. That idea is dark matter. Is one of the theories true? Are any of them? Maybe or maybe not. Saying that we have no idea is saying that we do not have the concept of dark matter.
>>So... wait. Given my example, let's say you ask me what's in the box, and I say, "seems to be something small and hard.
Look at what you wrote, right there. Do we have any idea what's in the box? "something small and hard". Yes, we have an idea. Do we know Exactly what's in the box, no we do not, and I have been consistent. You on the other hand, just seem to be pushing a bias.
>>And I feel the same sort of annoyance at people who believe everything written in a scientific journal as that annoyance you feel towards those who believe everything written in the bible. Yes, even scientists can be wrong. And yes, there are disagreements between scientists. Dude.
Gee, thanks for telling me what I already know. Would you kindly point out where I said "Dark matter is unquestionably true" or "scientists never make mistakes"? I'm ticked because you're not making any statements about the merit of the science, you're just poo-pooing it. You STILL haven't stated what your point was, and I still think you're just being contrary because you feel like it. So for the last time, do you have a point? Cause the only thing I see you doing is implying that science has no idea whatsoever what's going on. If you meant that science is not sure, say that! It's 100% true and I won't argue with that. If you want to keep implying that science is trying to hide something, I'm going to keep flaming you, because that's not skepticism, that's right wing fearmongering.
>>So... wait. Given my example, let's say you ask me what's in the box, and I say, "seems to be something small and hard. Not too heavy, though." You insist again that I tell you, specifically, what's actually in the box. You demand an answer and I say, "Dude, I have no idea."
If you want to conflate uncertainty with total lack of insight, have a ball. There's a big difference between "we have no idea" and "we're not sure". So what is it? do you have a point? If it's just that dark matter is not the final word, then I'm going to be underwhelmed, because that was never in contention.
>>For all your complaining that everyone is religious, you don't know me. You're the one jumping to conclusions. You're the one insisting that everyone in the world agrees with you about substances exhibiting seemingly magical properties
And the coup de grace.. Know you? I never said you were re
Given this example, would it be fair to say that "I don't know what's in the box"?
If there is something in the box, and you don't know what it is, then it would be appropriate to say that you cannot give a convincing description of it's contents. But it would be foolhardy to say that you have "no idea" what is in the box. If you feel it moving around when you shake it, you have at least one idea about the contents - they act as though they have mass. If you want to say that we aren't sure what dark matter is or sure how it acts, that's accurate. If you want to say that we have "no idea, no idea at all" about this phenomenon we describe as dark matter, then you are wrong. We know that something, whether it is an undiscovered particle or a whole system of forces acting like invisible matter, is exerting forces on visible matter. The fact is that we do have "an idea" of what is going on. We have theories that attempt to explain the observations. We do not have certainty, but we do have "an idea".
>>Given this example, would it be fair to say that "I don't know what's in the box"?
Because knowledge implies certainty in some degree, that would be fair. But it would be wrong to say that you have "no idea" what is in the box.
You seem to be awfully keen to prove something. What's your point? Before I start flaming you in earnest, are you trying to posit that science is not valid, or that dark matter is a fig leaf created by scientists who can't accept their lack of absolute objective knowledge? Correct me if I'm wrong in what I'm about to say, but from where I stand it looks like you're just trying to cast doubt on the idea of dark matter because you have some bias against science.
Actually, screw politeness. The AC was being a punk. I think you're just being a punk too. Prove me wrong, state your point, if you have one. It obviously has to do with getting someone to admit that "we don't know" something. What? out with it! Are you going to ask us to be jehova's witnesses or something? I don't know what you think you're accomplishing, but its having the effect of making you look like a church apologist. The AC was wrong, and he's an ass. What purpose is there for you to try to back him up? You're like the girl in my middle school who would respond to everything with "why". I have to go. "why?" because I have to catch my bus. "why?" because it's gonna leave and I need to go home. "why?" because I need to eat dinner. "why?" because I'm hungry. "why?" because I haven't eaten for 4 hours. "why?" because I was busy. "why?"
Dude, you're like that girl. Here's a tip - pestering ability is not wisdom. You're just being a prick. Get lost, hoser.
>>If you're attacking religion at least get your facts strait.
Often the religious people don't know anything about Aquinas or Descartes. They don't know about philosophy or ethics. They just want to disparage science. These people are poor partners for level headed conversation. Making assertions in a controlled, adult manner won't be repaid with thoughful responses. Instead they spin and spit venom.
>>The pro-religious posters on /. don't bring up these "scientific" errors, why do stubborn pro-science folks bring up layman religion that has nothing to do with real religion?
I can't say I'm following you 100%. But you seem to more interested in an exchange of ideas than in pushing your view, and that's my big issue. In the context of this exchange, I can tell you that I think the "science bots" attack the religion in cases where the other person has already showed that they will not be swayed or back down from an erroneous or offensive assertion on the basis of their religion or faith. Or, if the person is just trolling, the attack on the religion might just be a means to attacking the person.
Also, religion and science and philosophy are all very deep subjects with many layers and nuances. Frequently oversimplifications are made just for the sake of appearance. Evolution is attacked in this way constantly. Religion is also applied incorrectly sometimes. The spiritual teachings of Christianity, IMHO, have intrinsic value. However, I consider a literal interpretation of Genesis to border on idiocy. When I dismiss religion as superstition, it's because I've concluded that the person I'm talking to thinks that reality is a function of the whims of magical ghosts. If I'm discussing religion as a way of connecting with other people or ones own nature (which isn't often) then I know we're not talking about Santa and the Easter Bunny, but about humanity.
Wow, I sure rambled. Oh well. I guess I'm saying that people who think the earth is 6000 years old and use that as the basis for arguing anything falsifiable are fools or worse, and they draw attacks on their religion be being inappropriate.
And of course sometimes people attack religion as a shortcut - you believe X and X is silly so you must be wrong about Y - and that's not so great. In cases where someone is just bashing science or scientists, sometimes turnabout is fair play. Of course it's better if one can just say "Look, you said ABC, but ABC is false because of JKL and QRS and VWX", but often (so often) people take positions whose message isn't factual, but emotional, and that's when the fireworks begin. The AC had a tone of this in his post; he said nothing about politics, but his message evokes the political stage of left and right. I could post on ChristianScienceMonitor that "Bush's claims to be directed by God indicates psychosis not faith", but I'd never win the debate. It would be a flamewar in seconds if they didn't delete the comment outright. There's more at issue than just my assertion that Bush is incorrect to assert that "God" whispered in his ear. Its a case of coloring the forum with an undertone of presumptions. No one is truly neutral (no one) and everyone lives their life with partial knowledge. When people speak in winks and nudges, they have already given up their claim to pseudo-objectivity. They've taken a side, accepted their subjectivity without trying to grasp the subjective truth of the other side. And when they try to push their subjectivity as objective, that's offensive. When I see people doing that, I dig my heels in - I guess I could go all socratic on them, but it would be lost on most of them (by them I mean trolls, I do not mean religious people in general).
Ow, carpal tunnel.
Every time science studies something, someone somewhere plays it up that science is ignorant and backwards because "those scientists are now finding out that they don't know everything". Which is idiocy for several reasons, but this article isn't about religion so they're offtopic.
>>...would you argue with that. I mean, loosely, that's the deal, right? In other words, we don't know.
Loosely, I would say that you have oversimplified two important facts out of your summary in order to fit your bias. Fact 1 is that we can indeed detect dark matter, the motion of matter in space as if there were matter which is not optically visible, it how we detect it. Fact 2, which is subtle, is that the "unknown phenomena" wasn't named "dark matter" arbitrarily. They didn't come up with the name and then create the theory - they came up with the theory based on the data, and then named it. Your version implies that the scientists applied the name without any idea whether or not it was relevant. But the reality is the opposite - they came up with a theory to explain the phenomena, THEN named it.
You're pushing to dismiss the concept of dark matter on the grounds that it's unconfirmed. Because it's unconfirmed, I fully understand that you may wish to attribute the phenomena to other causes. That's your prerogative. But there's no disproof of the theory so far, so whether or not I believe it, saying that it's "wrong" is unsupported.
Do we know? You didn't specify the subject of our knowledge. Do we know that there are places in space where the matter we know and understand to 9 significant figures acts differently than we expect it to? Yes, we know that. Do we know how to synthesize this phenomena in a lab? That we do not know. But your original implication that we "have no idea" what's going on is incorrect. And you seem much more interested in taking some kind of anti-science stance than in accepting that there is still work to be done in the field. You seem to want to back up the AC's position that science is some kind of religion, and more specifically, that dark matter is the equivalent of a deity, which is profoundly retarded.
It's crystal clear that the AC's position is based entirely on his anti-secular or anti-science view, and is not only a fool by slashdot standards, but would be laughed off his milk crate if he ever tried to explain his point to a group of laypeople.
The problem isn't that everyone who is religious has a closed mind; there are religious people with open minds (even more now that it won't get your burned for heresy). The problem is that some people, who are *very* closed minded use religion as an excuse to believe- or not believe - arbitrary things. I can't say for sure whether these bottom of the barrel "I'm right no matter what" types are products of religion or are merely drawn to it, but I can say that they annoy me, that they fester unchecked in many places, and that they successfully supplant knowledge of reality with fantasy and falsehood to further their agendas.
>>That'a matter for discussion but Religion most certainly does not mean an automatic close minded approach.
True enough in an academic sense, but in the US at least, church and politics are closely tied, and "faith" is frequently used to close people's minds to one thing and/or focus their minds on another thing. I'm not by this saying that religion exists only for that purpose (real religion is imho not about that) but that in practice, it happens, and in my experience, a lot all the time.
>>There is even a school of thought that says without Christianity a lot of Scientific discoveries would have been a really late in coming. Since it's largely respobsible for driving out superstion in a lot of cultures.
Drove out superstition? So, leprechauns are superstition, but angels aren't? Looks to me like christianity replaced one superstition with another. Christianity may (for the sake of argument) be a more advanced form of superstition than faeries and elves and dwarves, but it's still not literal. One may be able to "interpret" religion to find guidance with your life, but the literal view is blatantly superstitious. How is one god better than 10? How are two magical, hidden worlds more real than ghosts walking this world? Sorry to have to ask you that, but I find it outrageously foolish to state that today's religion is less absurd than yesterday's just because the flavor changed.
>>dark matter is just another word for "we have no idea"
Wow, get a grip. 1), dark matter is not visible to the eye, but neither are x-rays. Invisible != Undetectable.
2), dark matter is not "all powerful." I can't even guess what you meant to imply. It's conjectured that dark matter exerts a force, not that it flies around like a genie granting wishes.
3), dark matter is just another word for "we found an anomaly, and our observations lead us to believe this model may explain that anomaly."
4) extra irony points for accusing science of using a "god of the gaps" approach because they discovered something new and put a name to it and are researching it. Clue on line 1, calling AC, clue on line 1.. please pick up.
Parent is a perfect example of reactionary political slop masquerading as relevant opinion. I sure hope the AC was just trolling, because if that's genuine ignorance, I fear for the future of our species. One redeeming quality though.. I'm sure our friend the AC didn't realize this, but implying that dark matter is a foil for ignorance by comparing it to god (can't see but it is there and its all powerful, honestly !) implies that the AC thinks god is a foil for ignorance. (I know he didn't use the word "god" explicitly, but what else could he be referring to? Root? :) doesn't fit.)
Once again an offtopic comment with no redeeming intellectual or informational value is modded +interesting by conservative mods who just want to rub their creationist, anti-rationalist views in the face of a technocratic forum. Mod parent down, down doobee down, doo wa.
Sorry, I've been channeling Steven Wright since wednesday. Which is really strange because he's not dead. And may be why I'm not funny when I do it.
Your original post is full of unnecessary drama. Calamity and woe, in caps? Please. Testy? Blind Rage? If you're on the fence anyway, why are you making such a big deal out of this? Do you get off on bashing scientists and drawing people's emotions out with playground antics? What do you think that says about you?
Really, what's flamebait about KTD's post? He agreed that evolution is theory, he voiced respect for the other poster, and he made some bland statements of opinion without attacking anyone.
Worst .. moderation .. ever.
Did you know that there are forums where people WANT to discuss the things you're talking about? Maybe you would be more welcome if you stayed ontopic.
Well ATN, I guess you can stop worrying about the big bad nerds having opinions that differ from yours, the GOP is here to moderate. (Hey, not that it needed to be modded up. But Overrated is just a bitches way out.. no metamoderation and no reason given. Come on, GOP, at least have the balls to call me out on whatever otherworldly issue you take with my comment.)
Before you tell someone else to get the mote out of their eye, take the beam out of your own. His first words were "Depends on which "christian" point of view." He was obviously railing at one loudmouth in particular, not the whole religion.
As for the rest of your post, you're welcome to your opinions, beliefs, faith, whatever. I'm not going to try to argue you out of your beliefs. I will state firmly and unequivocably that I disagree with you on the topic of religion. I do this not to rub my beliefs in your face, but because I am tired of seeing science put down as 'reactionary' and 'anti-religion'; I have my beliefs in advance and in absence of challenges to them. If mystically minded people want to discuss supernatural topics, far be it from me to stop them. Even if they do it here. But when such people assert that science is invalid because science and mysticism contradict each other, *then* I will respond with arguments.
In short, have what beliefs you want. I will also believe what I want. If our beliefs happen to contradict one another's, I give you fair warning that an attempt on your part to convince me that my beliefs are wrong on the grounds that they contradict yours will be met on my part by whatever grips me - laughter, argument, the cold shoulder, whatever - and you have been fairly warned that I disagree and that I am able and willing to argue.
>>but of course none of these clearly flaimbait comments are going to get modded as flaimbait because it's okay to troll it up if it's against a christian points of view.
OOOOhhh, now I get it.. everyone everywhere should get on their knees for your beliefs, but you should be able to go anywhere anytime and make snide comments without fear of being confronted? Give me a break.