True...though in the case of climate-changing activities by humans, the science is there but there probably isn't enough time.MacG wrote:History seem to show that science always win though, even if it might take some time.
Are we stupid enough to think TPTB aren't in control?
Moderator: Peak Moderation
-
emordnilap
- Posts: 14815
- Joined: 05 Sep 2007, 16:36
- Location: here
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
Skepticism is a necessary part of the scientific process. It keeps the wheat separated from the woo-woo.Science is nothing if not a continual dialectic.MacG wrote: Everytime science has evolved and managed to explain previously unexplainable phenomena, just about everyone and his dog has protested vigorously. Sometimes the process has been painfully extended over 50-100 years..
There is about as much science in the AGW theories as there were in eugenics. Science won over eugenics and I expect it to win over the AGW hysterics also.emordnilap wrote:True...though in the case of climate-changing activities by humans, the science is there but there probably isn't enough time.MacG wrote:History seem to show that science always win though, even if it might take some time.
IMO eugenics has much in common with darwinism. But the conclusions of eugenics lead to moral dilemma, and we choose (for the better I might add) to reclassify the whole thing as pseudo science. This spares us from the need of further persual 'in the name of science'.MacG wrote:There is about as much science in the AGW theories as there were in eugenics. Science won over eugenics and I expect it to win over the AGW hysterics also.emordnilap wrote:True...though in the case of climate-changing activities by humans, the science is there but there probably isn't enough time.MacG wrote:History seem to show that science always win though, even if it might take some time.
We choose to ignore many things for irrational reasons. Sometimes its a good thing, othertimes not.
Speaking as someone who knows quite a lot about genetics (I worked on the human genome project in an IT role) I have to say that Eugenics was racism dressed up as science. It started with a conclusion (white skinned people are superior) and looked for 'evidence' to support it. None of it would now stand up to even cursory inspection, and we know far more about how much (or little) genetics differentiates the races. It would be difficult to define race as anything other than an arbitary statistical distribution of alleles, and it is quite impossible to allocate any individual to any one race.PhilSage wrote: IMO eugenics has much in common with darwinism. But the conclusions of eugenics lead to moral dilemma, and we choose (for the better I might add) to reclassify the whole thing as pseudo science. This spares us from the need of further persual 'in the name of science'.
.
Even modern work like the performance of 'ethnic groups' (again undefinable) in IQ tests are little more than questionable sociology and certainly not hard science.
I don't like chimpanzees. They remind me too much of my ancestors...
'Great apes', too, is a natural category only so long as it includes humans. We are great apes. All the great apes that have ever lived, including ourselves, are linked to one another by an unbroken chain of parent-child bonds. The same is true of all animals and plants that have ever lived, but there the distances involved are much greater. Molecular evidence suggests that our common ancestor with chimpanzees lived, in Africa, between five and seven million years ago, say half a million generations ago. This is not long by evolutionary standards.RalphW wrote: I don't like chimpanzees. They remind me too much of my ancestors...
Happenings are sometimes organised at which thousands of people hold hands and form a human chain, say from coast to coast of the United States, in aid of some cause or charity. Let us imagine setting one up along the equator, across the width of our home continent of Africa. It is a special kind of chain, involving parents and children, and we will have to play tricks with time in order to imagine it. You stand on the shore of the Indian Ocean in southern Somalia, facing north, and in your left hand you hold the right hand of your mother. In turn she holds the hand of her mother, your grandmother. Your grandmother holds her mother's hand, and so on. The chain wends its way up the beach, into the arid scrubland and westwards on towards the Kenya border.
How far do we have to go until we reach our common ancestor with the chimpanzees? It is a surprisingly short way. Allowing one yard per person, we arrive at the ancestor we share with chimpanzees in under 300 miles. We have hardly started to cross the continent; we are still not half way to the Great Rift Valley. The ancestor is standing well to the east of Mount Kenya, and holding in her hand an entire chain of her lineal descendants, culminating in you standing on the Somali beach.
The daughter that she is holding in her right hand is the one from whom we are descended. Now the arch-ancestress turns eastward to face the coast, and with her left hand grasps her other daughter, the one from whom the chimpanzees are descended (or son, of course, but let's stick to females for convenience). The two sisters are facing one another, and each holding their mother by the hand. Now the second daughter, the chimpanzee ancestress, holds her daughter's hand, and a new chain is formed, proceeding back towards the coast. First cousin faces first cousin, second cousin faces second cousin, and so on. By the time the folded-back chain has reached the coast again, it consists of modern chimpanzees. You are face to face with your chimpanzee cousin, and you are joined to her by an unbroken chain of mothers holding hands with daughters. If you walked up the line like an inspecting general--past Homo erectus, Homo habilis, perhaps Australopithecus afarensis--and down again the other side (the intermediates on the chimpanzee side are unnamed because, as it happens, no fossils have been found), you would nowhere find any sharp discontinuity. Daughters would resemble mothers just as much (or as little) as they always do. Mothers would love daughters, and feel affinity with them, just as they always do. And this hand-in-hand continuum, joining us seamlessly to chimpanzees, is so short that it barely makes it past the hinterland of Africa, the mother continent.
Our chain of African apes, doubling back on itself, is in miniature like the ring of gulls round the pole, except that the intermediates happen to be dead. The point I want to make is that, as far as morality is concerned, it should be incidental that the intermediates are dead. What if they were not? What if a clutch of intermediate types had survived, enough to link us to modern chimpanzees by a chain, not just of hand-holders, but of interbreeders? Remember the song, 'I've danced with a man, who's danced with a girl, who's danced with the Prince of Wales'? We can't (quite) interbreed with modern chimpanzees, but we'd need only a handful of intermediate types to be able to sing: 'I've bred with a man, who's bred with a girl, who's bred with a chimpanzee.'
It is sheer luck that this handful of intermediates no longer exists. ('Luck' from some points of view: for myself, I should love to meet them.) But for this chance, our laws and our morals would be very different. We need only discover a single survivor, say a relict Australopithecus in the Budongo Forest, and our precious system of norms and ethics would come crashing about our ears. The boundaries with which we segregate our world would be all shot to pieces. Racism would blur with speciesism in obdurate and vicious confusion. Apartheid, for those that believe in it, would assume a new and perhaps a more urgent import.
But why, a moral philosopher might ask, should this matter to us? Isn't it only the discontinuous mind that wants to erect barriers anyway? So what if, in the continuum of all apes that have lived in Africa, the survivors happen to leave a convenient gap between Homo and Pan? Surely we should, in any case, not base our treatment of animals on whether or not we can interbreed with them. If we want to justify double standards--if society agrees that people should be treated better than, say, cows (cows may be cooked and eaten, people may not)--there must be better reasons than cousinship. Humans may be taxonomically distant from cows, but isn't it more important that we are brainier? Or better, following Jeremy Bentham, that humans can suffer more--that cows, even if they hate pain as much as humans do (and why on earth should we suppose otherwise?), do not know what is coming to them? Suppose that the octopus lineage had happened to evolve brains and feelings to rival ours; they easily might have done. The mere possibility shows the incidental nature of cousinship. So, the moral philosopher asks, why emphasise the human/chimp continuity?
Yes, in an ideal world we probably should come up with a better reason than cousinship for, say, preferring carnivory to cannibalism. But the melancholy fact is that, at present, society's moral attitudes rest almost entirely on the discontinuous, speciesist imperative.
Excerpted from "Gaps in the Mind" By Richard Dawkins
http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/Wor ... mind.shtml
My origional point about the drying up of credit and PO, was not to link the two, i.e. PO has caused the drying up of credit, as someone else said, that has been a disaster waiting to happen since de-regulation.
BUT, if you look at the oil forcasts coming out of the banks, they are getting better and better pricewise. Who does that bloke who is deemed 'the Guru' work for? Is it Goldman?
Peak oil is getting more and more news. Matt Simmonds and the like mean that few top bankers will not have heard of PO. Having had to make such write downs I would think those in charge of lending at most banks will have been having a very busy time of late. They will be doing alot of research into when it might be safe to lend again. I find it inconcievable that during this research PO will not have been found and investigated.
I would also be surprised if banks haven't had independent teams looking at oil since the oil shocks of the seventies. Some must have come to similar conclusions as those that ASPO have come to. They probably have better data and connections than Campbell.
So, I think while the credit markets froze up due to a lack of confidence caused by all those shakey loans they had been making, and the huge leverage present in the market, I think we may find that the credit markets stay closed alot longer than expected as PO becomes wider knowledge.
n.b. During the decent, which would be of more value? Money or Assets? If a bank has to reposess a house it is foregoing money (interest), and in return gaining a physical asset. In a declining economy, this would be the primary business model of the banks. Lend money and gain assets after reposession, so lending isn't necessarily off the cards entirely. However expect to have to ensure that you have put enough capital into the house to cover the loss in value over the term of the mortgage (the bank can't loose then can it).
It would seem that most of us are late thirties here. We were born in the 70's and were too young to remember the oil shocks financially. However, I do remember my Dad telling me that when I was his age there would be no more oil. I can remember it vividly. I remember being upset that I wouldn't be able to ride a motorbike when I was a grown up. His generation have been through this. During those first shocks things would have been put in place (like the IEA god bless their soles), to monitor oil and I would think that lessons learned then will still be with some of the older dons of banking.... Let's not be naieve enough to think that we are the only ones who get it..... So in short, I'm not saying that there is an illuminati, or that there is a conspiracy etc, but I am saying that bankers will if not have been aware of PO, are certainly becoming aware of PO. It is there business and their lively hood. It's their job to know these things. It will affect the return of credit I expect.
Politicians on the other hand are badly placed to understand PO. There is no continuity. Politicians are getting younger. Many won't have been financially independent when the oil shocks happened. They rely on others to do research, (i.e. blindly trust the IEA's figures), and they re-shuffle all the damn time.
PO will be being used by the banks to make money, or at the very least to avoid loosing it.
Sorry for the long rambly post. It's early and I'm a bit hungover.
BUT, if you look at the oil forcasts coming out of the banks, they are getting better and better pricewise. Who does that bloke who is deemed 'the Guru' work for? Is it Goldman?
Peak oil is getting more and more news. Matt Simmonds and the like mean that few top bankers will not have heard of PO. Having had to make such write downs I would think those in charge of lending at most banks will have been having a very busy time of late. They will be doing alot of research into when it might be safe to lend again. I find it inconcievable that during this research PO will not have been found and investigated.
I would also be surprised if banks haven't had independent teams looking at oil since the oil shocks of the seventies. Some must have come to similar conclusions as those that ASPO have come to. They probably have better data and connections than Campbell.
So, I think while the credit markets froze up due to a lack of confidence caused by all those shakey loans they had been making, and the huge leverage present in the market, I think we may find that the credit markets stay closed alot longer than expected as PO becomes wider knowledge.
n.b. During the decent, which would be of more value? Money or Assets? If a bank has to reposess a house it is foregoing money (interest), and in return gaining a physical asset. In a declining economy, this would be the primary business model of the banks. Lend money and gain assets after reposession, so lending isn't necessarily off the cards entirely. However expect to have to ensure that you have put enough capital into the house to cover the loss in value over the term of the mortgage (the bank can't loose then can it).
It would seem that most of us are late thirties here. We were born in the 70's and were too young to remember the oil shocks financially. However, I do remember my Dad telling me that when I was his age there would be no more oil. I can remember it vividly. I remember being upset that I wouldn't be able to ride a motorbike when I was a grown up. His generation have been through this. During those first shocks things would have been put in place (like the IEA god bless their soles), to monitor oil and I would think that lessons learned then will still be with some of the older dons of banking.... Let's not be naieve enough to think that we are the only ones who get it..... So in short, I'm not saying that there is an illuminati, or that there is a conspiracy etc, but I am saying that bankers will if not have been aware of PO, are certainly becoming aware of PO. It is there business and their lively hood. It's their job to know these things. It will affect the return of credit I expect.
Politicians on the other hand are badly placed to understand PO. There is no continuity. Politicians are getting younger. Many won't have been financially independent when the oil shocks happened. They rely on others to do research, (i.e. blindly trust the IEA's figures), and they re-shuffle all the damn time.
PO will be being used by the banks to make money, or at the very least to avoid loosing it.
Sorry for the long rambly post. It's early and I'm a bit hungover.
Jim
For every complex problem, there is a simple answer, and it's wrong.
"Heaven and earth are ruthless, and treat the myriad creatures as straw dogs" (Lao Tzu V.i).
For every complex problem, there is a simple answer, and it's wrong.
"Heaven and earth are ruthless, and treat the myriad creatures as straw dogs" (Lao Tzu V.i).
First I must say I am impressed by the level headedness and thought in this discussion. A friend sent me this link and I am glad he did so.
Briefly on eugenics I always thought the philosophy of eugenics was about breeding out genetic instabilities such as diseases and life threatening hereditary conditions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
I remember first seeing the subject when I was reading up on Nicola Tesla who supported the idea, he was was a bit extreme but I guess that goes with the territory. I don't suggest for an instant that it is right or should be implemented. I don't. It would definitely appeal to those bent on superiority issues. I do think however that nature won't hesitate to reinstate its version of the issue. (Darwinism as pointed out)
As a farmer looking at eugenics in the context of domestic stock and peak oil issues I believe that a lot of domestic animals are going to be in serious trouble if animal medication like vaccinations, drenches and treatments become scarce. Many wont survive without this support.
Back to the discussion though I think any rational understanding of TPTB or whatever constitutes that title is not really possible. I have moved amongst people who's lives were about the power game and noted that the more power involved the further people become removed from reality. I don't think it is possible to rationalise their actions.
I like the analogy of the beehive organism in reference to the human race organism though I think humans are more dysfunctional. (self destructive) Bees do practice a degree of eugenics though. The weak (read disease prone etc.) or disorderly are evicted. (alcoholics amongst bees are not tolerated) The drones are kicked out of the hive over winter and left to die as they are bred only to impregnate the queen during the warm months and serve no purpose during winter and so it goes.
Others have likened humanity to a disease or parasite. I hope not but I do think it is apt in describing the nature of TPTB. I think the reaction of TPTB to peak oil would be akin to a disease showing concern for its host. Very short term considerations. If only they had another planet to infect.
All said and done I always acknowledge my views to be of the moment and definitely subject to error. I have enjoyed this discussion.
Briefly on eugenics I always thought the philosophy of eugenics was about breeding out genetic instabilities such as diseases and life threatening hereditary conditions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
I remember first seeing the subject when I was reading up on Nicola Tesla who supported the idea, he was was a bit extreme but I guess that goes with the territory. I don't suggest for an instant that it is right or should be implemented. I don't. It would definitely appeal to those bent on superiority issues. I do think however that nature won't hesitate to reinstate its version of the issue. (Darwinism as pointed out)
As a farmer looking at eugenics in the context of domestic stock and peak oil issues I believe that a lot of domestic animals are going to be in serious trouble if animal medication like vaccinations, drenches and treatments become scarce. Many wont survive without this support.
Back to the discussion though I think any rational understanding of TPTB or whatever constitutes that title is not really possible. I have moved amongst people who's lives were about the power game and noted that the more power involved the further people become removed from reality. I don't think it is possible to rationalise their actions.
I like the analogy of the beehive organism in reference to the human race organism though I think humans are more dysfunctional. (self destructive) Bees do practice a degree of eugenics though. The weak (read disease prone etc.) or disorderly are evicted. (alcoholics amongst bees are not tolerated) The drones are kicked out of the hive over winter and left to die as they are bred only to impregnate the queen during the warm months and serve no purpose during winter and so it goes.
Others have likened humanity to a disease or parasite. I hope not but I do think it is apt in describing the nature of TPTB. I think the reaction of TPTB to peak oil would be akin to a disease showing concern for its host. Very short term considerations. If only they had another planet to infect.
All said and done I always acknowledge my views to be of the moment and definitely subject to error. I have enjoyed this discussion.
Honesty is the doorway to freedom.
Always be prepared to admit you may be wrong, that way you will get to be right more often.
Always be prepared to admit you may be wrong, that way you will get to be right more often.
This is drifting a little off topic, but most modern farmed animals are now so hideously inbred that they would quickly become extinct without human intervention. Some are simply reproductively unviable, like milking cows. Others are so energetically inefficient they could never find a enough food. Many would not be able to find an ecological niche in a wild environment. However, it is the loss of genetic variability in the population which really dooms them all, they will not be able to adapt to changing environments and climates.
That in itself is why eugenics is a bad idea even for domesticated animals. We all have a few 'bad' recessive genes in our DNA, and it is simply a matter of luck if we accidentally mate with another carrier. My parents did, my brother died. Tough on the individual, but we are not wise enough to say what is a good or bad allele. It might be that in recessive form the gene has selective advantage, or that in a sudden change of environment in a PO/climate change world, the gene adds disease resistance which quickly makes it dominant. We just don't know.
We have lost the Faustian race to control our consumption through civilisation. Human 'evolution' has largely been frozen/reversed by civilisation and racial mixing. We are homogenising our DNA (which makes us more adaptable) and destroying local cultures (which makes us less adaptable) at alarming rates.
Sorry if this is rambling...
That in itself is why eugenics is a bad idea even for domesticated animals. We all have a few 'bad' recessive genes in our DNA, and it is simply a matter of luck if we accidentally mate with another carrier. My parents did, my brother died. Tough on the individual, but we are not wise enough to say what is a good or bad allele. It might be that in recessive form the gene has selective advantage, or that in a sudden change of environment in a PO/climate change world, the gene adds disease resistance which quickly makes it dominant. We just don't know.
We have lost the Faustian race to control our consumption through civilisation. Human 'evolution' has largely been frozen/reversed by civilisation and racial mixing. We are homogenising our DNA (which makes us more adaptable) and destroying local cultures (which makes us less adaptable) at alarming rates.
Sorry if this is rambling...
I totally agree. There are already problems related to a shrinking gene pool in the beef industry even if it is not widely acknowledged.
I have worked with wild cattle that reverted from domestic stock and they are inferior in quality according to our present expectations of them however they are survivors like the wild pig and can look after themselves. Needless to say the process claims a lot of casualties.
Playing with nature (eugenics) I believe is just another bad idea we as humans have dreamed up. However it is a two edged sword.
Is our ability to save more and more people with greater problems inadvertently changing and domesticating the human race? I guess that is part of where we are going but will probably take a sharp turn as PO asserts itself. I doubt that I would be alive myself without modern medicine.
Glad to see someone else getting lost in their thoughts. Makes me feel right at home.
Going back to TPTB. Which will be the hardest to survive? Our physical environment (food shelter etc.) or the political environment. ie TPTB. I think our above discussion has direct bearing on the first problem but the nature of TPTB also has huge ramifications on our future. (war etc) I only hope that we are not sacrificed for the greater good.
Looking at the politicians I think they are not tied into the system enough to care to much about the long term consequences of their actions or inactions. The banks on the other hand are very involved but if they think the practice of fractional reserve banking they use is sustainable then I don't think they grasp reality to well. Personally I think the sooner this system is replaced the better. Replaced with what I don't know but so long as reality has a role to play in it.
I believe some of the African nations judged their wealth in cattle and how many people they could support. Sounds realistic to me. A food based economy. Not gold or financial markets.
I guess with PO and Peak Resources we have reached Peak civilisation perhaps as some claim. Have the TPTB got the power to change a situation such as that?
I have worked with wild cattle that reverted from domestic stock and they are inferior in quality according to our present expectations of them however they are survivors like the wild pig and can look after themselves. Needless to say the process claims a lot of casualties.
Playing with nature (eugenics) I believe is just another bad idea we as humans have dreamed up. However it is a two edged sword.
Is our ability to save more and more people with greater problems inadvertently changing and domesticating the human race? I guess that is part of where we are going but will probably take a sharp turn as PO asserts itself. I doubt that I would be alive myself without modern medicine.
Glad to see someone else getting lost in their thoughts. Makes me feel right at home.
Going back to TPTB. Which will be the hardest to survive? Our physical environment (food shelter etc.) or the political environment. ie TPTB. I think our above discussion has direct bearing on the first problem but the nature of TPTB also has huge ramifications on our future. (war etc) I only hope that we are not sacrificed for the greater good.
Looking at the politicians I think they are not tied into the system enough to care to much about the long term consequences of their actions or inactions. The banks on the other hand are very involved but if they think the practice of fractional reserve banking they use is sustainable then I don't think they grasp reality to well. Personally I think the sooner this system is replaced the better. Replaced with what I don't know but so long as reality has a role to play in it.
I believe some of the African nations judged their wealth in cattle and how many people they could support. Sounds realistic to me. A food based economy. Not gold or financial markets.
I guess with PO and Peak Resources we have reached Peak civilisation perhaps as some claim. Have the TPTB got the power to change a situation such as that?
Honesty is the doorway to freedom.
Always be prepared to admit you may be wrong, that way you will get to be right more often.
Always be prepared to admit you may be wrong, that way you will get to be right more often.
Maybe soon TPTB will refer simply to anyone capable of generating their own energy (and selling any surplus).
That could include individuals, renewables companies, landfill sites, farmers . . . whoever. These people would hold the keys to the existence of any political structures, and would be quite resistant to coercion I would have thought - trying to force energy producers into a certain regime could end up with the result that nobody gets any energy, and you can't maintain any kind of political system in that kind of situation.
Maybe we are heading for a renewable energy technocracy.
That could include individuals, renewables companies, landfill sites, farmers . . . whoever. These people would hold the keys to the existence of any political structures, and would be quite resistant to coercion I would have thought - trying to force energy producers into a certain regime could end up with the result that nobody gets any energy, and you can't maintain any kind of political system in that kind of situation.
Maybe we are heading for a renewable energy technocracy.
Andy Hunt
http://greencottage.burysolarclub.net
http://greencottage.burysolarclub.net
Eternal Sunshine wrote: I wouldn't want to worry you with the truth.
-
Blue Peter
- Posts: 1939
- Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
- Location: Milton Keynes
Just seen this on TOD, which may be relevant to this thread:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4320#comment-381908
Peter.
Edit: for spppppelin
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4320#comment-381908
Freelance Producer working for the BBC, kindly asks for your help.
Hi guys I wondered if you could help?
We’re currently producing a film dealing with Food security in Britain at the end of the cheap oil era (by the way there doesn’t appear to be any security at all, so no surprises there then).
We’re lining up a number of interviews with commentators and experts in various fields but to add more credence to their contributions for the as yet uninformed public we’re scouring the net for famous quotes that hint at the fact that the bigger players know about or have a very good inkling about peak oil.
We’re looking for quotes from heads of western states, official governmental bodies, CEOs of oil and gas companies, car manufactures, electricity giants etc,
Such as “ We have a problem America is Addicted to Oil” dubya , or “a path from our economies that are today over-dependent on oil towards the post-oil energy economies of the future.” Mr Brown
Peter.
Edit: for spppppelin
Does anyone know where the love of God goes when the waves turn the seconds to hours?
Well that quote from the Oil Drum regarding the Freelancer making a programme for the BBC just about brings us full circle......
Whilst I agree that TPTB may well not be in control, I think there is no doubt that they (at least a key number of them) are fully aware of the situation regarding the whole Peak Oil problem.
Why are they not doing more to mitigate the coming problems? Why do our leaders not have more courage? I can only conclude our current leaders are not up to the mark.
I look forward to some new leaders taking the helm - it is long overdue!
Whilst I agree that TPTB may well not be in control, I think there is no doubt that they (at least a key number of them) are fully aware of the situation regarding the whole Peak Oil problem.
Why are they not doing more to mitigate the coming problems? Why do our leaders not have more courage? I can only conclude our current leaders are not up to the mark.
I look forward to some new leaders taking the helm - it is long overdue!Real money is gold and silver
I don't agree! Being in a leading position and being fully aware of PeakOil is equivalent to being aware that you have cancer and will soon die in a disgraceful, messy and painful way.snow hope wrote:Well that quote from the Oil Drum regarding the Freelancer making a programme for the BBC just about brings us full circle......
Whilst I agree that TPTB may well not be in control, I think there is no doubt that they (at least a key number of them) are fully aware of the situation regarding the whole Peak Oil problem.
Why are they not doing more to mitigate the coming problems? Why do our leaders not have more courage? I can only conclude our current leaders are not up to the mark.
If some of the top actors are indeed aware, they probably keep it to themselves. I mean, if WE have problems finding others to talk with, just imagine what it would be among the people with the heaviest investments in the current society!
If my theories about evolutionary processes behind society are correct, there is nobody who IS in control in the true sense of the word, and nobody CAN have an idea about what to do.