Dieoff starting in Africa

Discussion of the latest Peak Oil news (please also check the Website News area below)

Moderator: Peak Moderation

User avatar
AndySir
Posts: 485
Joined: 23 Jun 2006, 14:10

Post by AndySir »

UndercoverElephant wrote: So a large part of the reason why humanity is not going to collectively adopt vegetarianism is because people like me insist that it is unrealistic to believe it is going to happen?

I don't agree.
Consider for a moment each individual being issued with the stark proposition that they could save x number of children's lives if they gave up meat - how many would accept? We know that such a proposition can be made so what is preventing a sudden tsunami of hippiedom? I would suggest that it is only the 'realistic' belief that the rest of the world, presented with this proposition, would decline making the sacrifice worthless.

Sounds a little like the whole prisoner's dilemma in game theory. Of course we know the best outcome is for the prisoners to keep their mouth's shut but they don't because they don't believe it's realistic that the other prisoners will do so.
User avatar
DominicJ
Posts: 4387
Joined: 18 Nov 2008, 14:34
Location: NW UK

Post by DominicJ »

Consider for a moment each individual being issued with the stark proposition that they could save x number of children's lives if they gave up meat - how many would accept?
I think I'll have steak tonight, just to drum it into you, Biff is a ****ing weirdo who sees no difference between his next door neighbour and someone literaly on the other aside of the planet.

99.9999% of the populace does not think like you, never has done and never will do.

And until you accept that fact, your "plans" are no more viable than those that wish to create world peace by replacing war with football.
I'm a realist, not a hippie
User avatar
Ludwig
Posts: 3849
Joined: 08 Jul 2008, 00:31
Location: Cambridgeshire

Post by Ludwig »

clv101 wrote:
UndercoverElephant wrote:Why leave room for hope where there actually isn't any?
You don't know that! If history tells us anything, is that predicting the future is fiendishly hard.
UE's pessimism is not based on some kind of sixth sense. It's deductive, and based on an informed understanding of what can't possibly happen.

Your and Biff's optimism is based on the premise of some kind of deus ex machina intervening and saving the world from catastrophe.

Many people were predicting war throughout the 1930s. They would have said that events were quite clearly building up to it. But you'd presumably argue that they were just "lucky" in their guess?
You don't have any clearer idea of the absolute truth than any of us.
No, but he is much better at balancing the probabilities than you optimists, IMO.
100 years from now the Horn of Africa could be a nicer place to live than Surrey.
Very unlikely for all sorts of reasons, but in any case beside the point.
Your attitude contributes to fulfilling your negative prophecy, attitudes like Biff's (as improbable as you think it) challenge that negative view.
UE simply understands that sometimes events are out of our control and not likely to lead anywhere very good. Through most of history, most people accepted that events were in the lap of the gods. Perhaps they were less happy than most people in the developed world today, but happiness is often the price you have to pay for realism.
"We're just waiting, looking skyward as the days go down / Someone promised there'd be answers if we stayed around."
User avatar
clv101
Site Admin
Posts: 10556
Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
Contact:

Post by clv101 »

Ludwig wrote:Your and Biff's optimism is based on the premise of some kind of deus ex machina intervening and saving the world from catastrophe...
No, my position is not one of optimism. In my opinion it is more likely than not that significant parts of Africa will descend into "hell on Earth" with 10s of millions dieing unpleasant deaths - a whole load of compounding factors contribute to that. But it absolutely isn't anywhere close to a certainty!

My point is that the world, and especially the next few decades is highly uncertain. In my opinion, anyone who says anything about the future with the kind of certainty UndercoverElephant does is likely to be wrong - like almost everyone else who's made predictions about the future.

Some film character once said: "The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
User avatar
DominicJ
Posts: 4387
Joined: 18 Nov 2008, 14:34
Location: NW UK

Post by DominicJ »

My point is that the world, and especially the next few decades is highly uncertain.
True, but that doesnt mean any crackpot theory is as good as any reasoned thought.

I could magicaly grow wings and fly to work.
I wont, but you cant say that, because your dont *know*

Ethiopia *could* become the worlds richest knowledge based economy.
But it *wont*.
I'm a realist, not a hippie
User avatar
Ludwig
Posts: 3849
Joined: 08 Jul 2008, 00:31
Location: Cambridgeshire

Post by Ludwig »

clv101 wrote: My point is that the world, and especially the next few decades is highly uncertain. In my opinion, anyone who says anything about the future with the kind of certainty UndercoverElephant does is likely to be wrong - like almost everyone else who's made predictions about the future.
That's simply not true. People were predicting war in Europe for decades before 1914, and similarly many people felt war was inevitable once Hitler came to power.

If you have a good knowledge of facts, a feel for the unfolding of events, and perhaps above all an understanding of the limitations of human nature based on observation and knowledge of history, you can make pretty reasonable general predictions about the future.

There will be no great pulling-together of humanity to face this crisis. Quite the opposite. This is a situation that has played out many times in history, and the fact is that when there aren't enough lifeboats, "You first" is not the prevailing ethos.

UE's predictions aren't even all that specific. Your attitude seems to be, "Never mind the evidence, let's take solace in what we don't know." If something good is waiting in the wings that we don't know about, it would have to be HUGE to counteract the negative effects of what we do know about. And if it's that huge, you'd have expected it to have made its existence known by now.
Some film character once said: "The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
Actually, there is a body of scientific evidence that suggests this is not the case: that we are all careering towards an inevitable future and that what seems like free will to us is just the future pulling our strings...
"We're just waiting, looking skyward as the days go down / Someone promised there'd be answers if we stayed around."
User avatar
UndercoverElephant
Posts: 13500
Joined: 10 Mar 2008, 00:00
Location: UK

Post by UndercoverElephant »

clv101 wrote:
UndercoverElephant wrote:Why leave room for hope where there actually isn't any?
You don't know that! If history tells us anything, is that predicting the future is fiendishly hard. You don't have any clearer idea of the absolute truth than any of us.
I'm not talking absolute (i.e. noumenal) truths, of the sort "God exists" or "God doesn't exist." I'm talking about what is going on in the phenomenal, empirical world. And I'd claim that I do have a clearer idea of that than the vast majority of humans. Do I have a clearer view than most of the people who post on this board? That's not for me to decide.
100 years from now the Horn of Africa could be a nicer place to live than Surrey.
Only if Surrey is a really horrible place to live, which is possible.
"We fail to mandate economic sanity because our brains are addled by....compassion." (Garrett Hardin)
User avatar
UndercoverElephant
Posts: 13500
Joined: 10 Mar 2008, 00:00
Location: UK

Post by UndercoverElephant »

AndySir wrote:
UndercoverElephant wrote: So a large part of the reason why humanity is not going to collectively adopt vegetarianism is because people like me insist that it is unrealistic to believe it is going to happen?

I don't agree.
Consider for a moment each individual being issued with the stark proposition that they could save x number of children's lives if they gave up meat - how many would accept? We know that such a proposition can be made so what is preventing a sudden tsunami of hippiedom? I would suggest that it is only the 'realistic' belief that the rest of the world, presented with this proposition, would decline making the sacrifice worthless.

Sounds a little like the whole prisoner's dilemma in game theory. Of course we know the best outcome is for the prisoners to keep their mouth's shut but they don't because they don't believe it's realistic that the other prisoners will do so.
Yes, of course, many of these problems are like a giant version of the prisoner's dilemma. This is one of the main reasons why they are never going to be solved.

As already stated: we are not going to change human nature.
"We fail to mandate economic sanity because our brains are addled by....compassion." (Garrett Hardin)
User avatar
UndercoverElephant
Posts: 13500
Joined: 10 Mar 2008, 00:00
Location: UK

Post by UndercoverElephant »

clv101 wrote:
Ludwig wrote:Your and Biff's optimism is based on the premise of some kind of deus ex machina intervening and saving the world from catastrophe...
No, my position is not one of optimism. In my opinion it is more likely than not that significant parts of Africa will descend into "hell on Earth" with 10s of millions dieing unpleasant deaths - a whole load of compounding factors contribute to that. But it absolutely isn't anywhere close to a certainty!

My point is that the world, and especially the next few decades is highly uncertain. In my opinion, anyone who says anything about the future with the kind of certainty UndercoverElephant does is likely to be wrong - like almost everyone else who's made predictions about the future.

Some film character once said: "The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
I'm not a determinist or a fatalist. I do not believe the future is predetermined in any way. I believe in free will.

What I refuse to believe is that after aeons when most humans have behaved in a basically self-serving manner (especially when threatened) that suddenly, just as they realise they are staring catastrophe in the face, they will start behaving like saints.

Perhaps I need to put some context on this. I am 43. For most of the first 33 years of my life I was a total non-believer in the possibility of a transformation of the sort you and Biff are dreaming about. Then I went through a period of believing a spiritual revolution was coming - that the Maya prophecy referred to the dawning of a new age of mankind. I believed this as part of a (spiritual) transformation of the way I viewed reality. However, this did not last for very long. I still believe in the possibility of personal transformation, but I had to come to an acceptance that a global transformation simply wasn't possible.

The killer "fact" is this: people's tendency to behave in a thoughtful, responsible, altruistic, spiritual way tends to decrease proportionately as the percieved threat level increases. It's a lot easier to behave and think like Biff does when you aren't personally worried about where your next meal is coming from or how on Earth you are going to pay your gas bill.
"We fail to mandate economic sanity because our brains are addled by....compassion." (Garrett Hardin)
User avatar
AndySir
Posts: 485
Joined: 23 Jun 2006, 14:10

Post by AndySir »

UndercoverElephant wrote:

As already stated: we are not going to change human nature.
UndercoverElephant wrote:
The killer "fact" is this: people's tendency to behave in a thoughtful, responsible, altruistic, spiritual way tends to decrease proportionately as the percieved threat level increases. It's a lot easier to behave and think like Biff does when you aren't personally worried about where your next meal is coming from or how on Earth you are going to pay your gas bill.
I guess human nature can change but only for the worse, or possibly Biff's thoughts and behaviour are not natural. Whatever way you look at it you change the game you change the result.
User avatar
DominicJ
Posts: 4387
Joined: 18 Nov 2008, 14:34
Location: NW UK

Post by DominicJ »

More meaningless gobblydegook

"Change the Game"

So, we can stop starvation if we change the game, well why didnt you say so. What game are we playing now, and how will get the frest of the world to play the new one?

Does it involve lots of regulations and taxes and gulags for those who dont embrace the new model?
I'm a realist, not a hippie
User avatar
AndySir
Posts: 485
Joined: 23 Jun 2006, 14:10

Post by AndySir »

DominicJ wrote:More meaningless gobblydegook

"Change the Game"

So, we can stop starvation if we change the game, well why didnt you say so. What game are we playing now, and how will get the frest of the world to play the new one?

Does it involve lots of regulations and taxes and gulags for those who dont embrace the new model?
Gobblydegook? I would have thought you might support the possibility of a grand libertarian experiment in Somalia? After all Biff was calling for little more than an enforcement of contracts in the surrounding waters. Could there be provided a monopoly on force from the international community in the absence of a state? It seems like a reasonable proposition, unless made impossible by a great wall of apathy.

Surely you must believe that would improve Somalia, DomJ?
User avatar
DominicJ
Posts: 4387
Joined: 18 Nov 2008, 14:34
Location: NW UK

Post by DominicJ »

I would have thought you might support the possibility of a grand libertarian experiment in Somalia?
Somalia isnt a libertarian state, its a gangster republic.
After all Biff was calling for little more than an enforcement of contracts in the surrounding waters.
Enforce what contracts, and enforce them on who?
Could there be provided a monopoly on force from the international community in the absence of a state?
That was tried, keep an eye out for black hawk down, it doesnt go well.....
It seems like a reasonable proposition, unless made impossible by a great wall of apathy.
I have no intention of being shot whilst trying to enforce the "law" in Somalia, unless you do, your part of the apathy. Unless your just willing to send othermen to die....
Surely you must believe that would improve Somalia, DomJ?
Property rights would improve all of Africa, a gaggle of out of touch greenies discussing it isnt going to replace TAB rules with a functional legal system.


TAB rules
Thats Africa Baby
I'm a realist, not a hippie
User avatar
AndySir
Posts: 485
Joined: 23 Jun 2006, 14:10

Post by AndySir »

Yes, I know that Somalia is not currently a libertarian state, Dom, I was suggesting a route by which it could become one because I thought you might approve. Contracts are generally not enforced ONpeople in this scenario. Contracts are made freely. I do not believe that the practice of assassinating Somali warlords we didn't like the look of that was glossed over in the movie Black Hawk Down could be considered providing a monopoly of force in the libertarian sense and in any case I would prefer not to draw historical lessons from a Holywood movie.

I have indeed volunteered to be shot at while trying to enforce the law as have a great many people in this country and others and yes, I am willing to send other men to die.

Do you have any serious objections, Dom?
JavaScriptDonkey
Posts: 1683
Joined: 02 Jun 2011, 00:12
Location: SE England

Post by JavaScriptDonkey »

Here's a curve ball for you to metaphysically meditate on. I was chatting to an ex-Pat from Nigeria who spends most of her time her but regularly flies back.

Her opinion is that many things in her country were better when it was run from London. There was less corruption, less crime, less racism(*) and more reliable justice than now. Her view is that the basic culture of her part of Africa is based solely on the idea of grab what you can.

I did point out that there were some downsides to the later Empire but her view was that such lack of 'freedom' only ever affected the power hungry anyway; for most people, most of the time, simple things like low taxes, good roads, honest Policemen and a reliable State were more important than democratic freedom.

(*)racism on an inter-tribal basis
Post Reply