• In total there are 22 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 22 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

Climate Apocalypse

Engage in discussions encompassing themes like cosmology, human evolution, genetic engineering, earth science, climate change, artificial intelligence, psychology, and beyond in this forum.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
User avatar
Kevin
Pulitzer Prize Finalist
Posts: 482
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 7:45 am
15
Location: Texas
Has thanked: 38 times
Been thanked: 98 times

Re: Climate Apocalypse

Unread post

Robert Tulip wrote:
geo wrote:I'm still thinking about that 50 billion figure, Robert. I thought you might appreciate this:

"What makes us special is that we, alone among species, can rise above the imperatives of our genes – thanks to the lifting cranes of our memes.” We must use the abundance of information we have to fundamentally change our consciousness around the realities of our current system. We must not only pay heed to the distant past of Easter Island, but also to the failed economic experiments of laissez-faire capitalism and the short-termist material acquisition that has defined our world since the Industrial Revolution."

http://www.beyondone.org/index.php?page ... cle&aid=40
Yes, human intelligence is the only thing that will save us, by enabling change to a sustainable global economy.
Human intelligence is also the most likely cause of the destruction of the planet! hrm... I was going to chime in on the post you quoted but didn't since admittedly I don't really know what I'm talking about. And I'm pretty sure you do. But really, memes? Isn't it, effectively, shorthand for designating the capability of spoken language? It is then not intelligence per se, but the accumulation of knowledge through language, which sets us apart from the other species. It is not our intelligence that allows us, for better or worse, to think beyond matters such as heat, light, and food but simply the ability to pass on information - good vocal chords - there's our meme.
Our fossil fuel economy is rather like the Easter Island statues, a linear path that leads to destruction, due to a lack of vision. Memes, meaning rationality, are the evolutionary factor that can enable change.
So are all the other species non-rational? I just don't think of meme as equating to rationality... maybe I should.
Memetic evolution is a primary driver of progress, but our current methods, including the cult of material consumption, are very much genetic, based on instinctive drivers that lack a coherent memetic basis.
Looking at this for the third time now I can say I think I agree through the word genetic. It seems to me that this argues against memes equating to rational thought. You say that the more foolish aspects of modern society lack a coherent memetic basis but what it actually lacks is a coherent rational basis but Greed is Good is just as coherent an outlook as any other. It is also one that is catered to far more than the the others... modern society is based on it.
I don't agree that the problems in capitalism make free markets wrong in principle. Rather, what is needed is effective regulation of a free market economy.
Capitalism, well-regulated or not, or some alternative, makes no difference... they are all symptoms of the problem. The problem is one of great intelligence stored in unwise containers. I think we kind of agree!
The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer? - Jeremy Bentham
User avatar
Robert Tulip

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6499
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
18
Location: Canberra
Has thanked: 2719 times
Been thanked: 2661 times
Contact:
Australia

Re: Climate Apocalypse

Unread post

Kevin wrote:Human intelligence is also the most likely cause of the destruction of the planet! hrm...
Fouling your nest is stupid. The same action cannot be both stupid and intelligent. Human reasoning capacity can be either smart or stupid. Beginning from incorrect premises (eg that humans are above nature) and failing to examine your assumptions is stupid. So I would say our current reckless plummeting towards destruction is based on stupid reasoning, not intelligence.
memes? Isn't it, effectively, shorthand for designating the capability of spoken language? It is then not intelligence per se, but the accumulation of knowledge through language, which sets us apart from the other species. It is not our intelligence that allows us, for better or worse, to think beyond matters such as heat, light, and food but simply the ability to pass on information - good vocal chords - there's our meme.
Good point, but I do think that language makes humans smarter than other animals. Memes are units of cultural evolution that are conveyed via the Lamarckian method of inheritance of acquired characteristics. Language is the main carrier of memes, and creates a capacity for communication and intelligence that is different in kind from dumb animals.
are all the other species non-rational? I just don't think of meme as equating to rationality... maybe I should.
What I was getting at, perhaps in too brief a response to the article that Geo linked, was that adaptive memes, ie those that display fertility, stability and longevity, have to be in tune with their natural context, just as adaptive genes do. Adaptive memes are good and intelligent. There are also bad memes that are destructive, and it is irrational to propagate them.
You say that the more foolish aspects of modern society lack a coherent memetic basis but what it actually lacks is a coherent rational basis but Greed is Good is just as coherent an outlook as any other. It is also one that is catered to far more than the the others... modern society is based on it. ... Capitalism, well-regulated or not, or some alternative, makes no difference... they are all symptoms of the problem. The problem is one of great intelligence stored in unwise containers. I think we kind of agree!
It depends what you mean by coherent. Coherence of ideas requires more than just internal consistency. If I say I want to foul my nest because I am selfish and will not have to worry about the impact of my deeds, and I don't care if my children die young, yes that can appear to be a perfectly consistent argument, considered in isolation. However, it does not cohere with any sense of moral responsibility, public good, future consequences or duty.

There are many memes that carry the seed of their own destruction. Nazism and communism are good examples; they seemed coherent to many people, and were successful for a while, but were based on false premises, and were not sustainable. This means that ultimately they were incoherent with regard to any claim to serve a public good.

Climate science tells us that if we move all the carbon from the crust to the atmosphere we will boil the oceans. Working back from this observation, actions that assume it is possible to steadily increase the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere are similarly incoherent with respect to an understanding of the public good.
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Re: Climate Apocalypse

Unread post

Kevin wrote: Human intelligence is also the most likely cause of the destruction of the planet! hrm... I was going to chime in on the post you quoted but didn't since admittedly I don't really know what I'm talking about. And I'm pretty sure you do. But really, memes? Isn't it, effectively, shorthand for designating the capability of spoken language? It is then not intelligence per se, but the accumulation of knowledge through language, which sets us apart from the other species. It is not our intelligence that allows us, for better or worse, to think beyond matters such as heat, light, and food but simply the ability to pass on information - good vocal chords - there's our meme.
Our fossil fuel economy is rather like the Easter Island statues, a linear path that leads to destruction, due to a lack of vision. Memes, meaning rationality, are the evolutionary factor that can enable change.
So are all the other species non-rational? I just don't think of meme as equating to rationality... maybe I should.
Kevin, I found that use of 'meme' to be confusing, too. I generally am not too sure of what memes are supposed to be doing, but my distinct impression is that their spread is claimed to happen through primarily nonrational processes. Maybe memes are to be distinguished from viruses of the mind, which definitely are said to spread nonrationally, but as I say, the whole matter is a puzzle to me.
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Re: Climate Apocalypse

Unread post

Robert Tulip wrote:My view is that drastic solutions are not needed. All we need to do is regard climate as a security matter and put a proportional amount of resourcing into research and development.
Wow, Robert, you say drastic solutions aren't needed...but you call moving people onto geoengineered islands not a drastic solution? As daunting as the engineering problems would be, I should think the social-engineering problems would be more daunting still.

You said that the big fossil firms are trying to squelch research into algae-based fuels, but I think the true picture is that, like good capitalists interested in making money, they are pretty heavily invested in developing a technology that clearly has promise.

Whatever are the merits of your vision, could I suggest that ad homs aren't the way to get people in your corner?
User avatar
Robert Tulip

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6499
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
18
Location: Canberra
Has thanked: 2719 times
Been thanked: 2661 times
Contact:
Australia

Re: Climate Apocalypse

Unread post

DWill wrote:
Robert Tulip wrote:My view is that drastic solutions are not needed. All we need to do is regard climate as a security matter and put a proportional amount of resourcing into research and development.
Wow, Robert, you say drastic solutions aren't needed...but you call moving people onto geoengineered islands not a drastic solution? As daunting as the engineering problems would be, I should think the social-engineering problems would be more daunting still.
No, I don't see it as drastic actually. It is about a vision of human evolution. Whales moved from land to sea, and so can humans. The sea is more than twice as big as the land, and 'greenfields' sites in the ocean can be established with rational institutions to enable unprecedented abundance at scale. Gradual development can start in sheltered coastal locations, working out methods that will succeed in the open ocean.

I do not think that any compulsion will be needed to address climate change. If a new superior technology and lifestyle can be invented, then people will be convinced by simple reason that change is in their material and cultural interest. It is about a new manifest destiny. No one was compelled to move from Europe to America or Australia.
You said that the big fossil firms are trying to squelch research into algae-based fuels, but I think the true picture is that, like good capitalists interested in making money, they are pretty heavily invested in developing a technology that clearly has promise. Whatever are the merits of your vision, could I suggest that ad homs aren't the way to get people in your corner?
You call criticism of big oil 'ad hom'. Yet these are the firms that bankroll denial of climate change. They are researching algae, but not on the 'sea-change' scale that is required, and in a context where they actively work to marginalize science in the media debate. Bjorn Lomborg, formerly a critic of climate science, has recently pointed out that research and development of sustainable energy solutions is actually piddling compared to the global need. A new Manhattan Project is urgent to address the freight train of climate disaster that is barreling down on our planet. Climate change is the real security threat. Against the danger of global warming, nothing else really matters.

The current state of the debate is toxic. On the one hand, we have leftists who see climate change as a new basis for socialist ideas that rely on big government, with tax proposals that won't actually fix the climate, and a straightened puritan vision that imagines if we make energy more expensive it will fix the climate. It won't. On the other side, we have climate deniers who stick their head in the sand to ignore the looming catastrophe. I am saying a market-based solution is possible, with the role of government primarily to catalyze private investment and exercise leadership on the global climate security agenda.
Last edited by Robert Tulip on Sun Jul 10, 2011 9:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Robert Tulip

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6499
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
18
Location: Canberra
Has thanked: 2719 times
Been thanked: 2661 times
Contact:
Australia

Re: Climate Apocalypse

Unread post

Tonight I heard an interview with Professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Research.

The key points he made were

1. Current trends suggest the world will be four degrees centigrade hotter by the end of this century.
2. This temperature rise may sound small (think difference between Florida and New York), but it is severe.
3. The real comparison is with human fever. Running a temperature of one degree makes you sick. A four degree temperature can be deadly.
4. Sea level rise caused by a four degree rapid rise in global average temperature would be catastrophic.
5. Technology now exists to hold global temperature rise to less than two degrees.
6. Political will does not yet exist to address global warming.
7. He is optimistic this will change.
Last edited by Robert Tulip on Tue Jul 12, 2011 9:06 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Re: Climate Apocalypse

Unread post

Maybe your slight swipe at the energy companies wasn't ad hominem (whether you understand that term as 'against' the man or 'to' the man). But the comment, "I know it seems fanciful, but any such evolutionary vision is going to seem fanciful to those who are stuck in the mud," was. That is saying that disagreement can have no merit because of the inherent dullness of anyone who's not on board. And from what you've presented, this is all your own idea, not vetted by the science community. It seems unreasonable to expect concurrence with something you concede has a fanciful air to it.

But as well, I fail to see how this vision could come about in the absence of drastic coercion. Humans are a bit attached to their culture, which resides in places and structures, largely. We also aren't enticed by mere survival, when you get down to it, needing to have survival on our own cultural terms. Unless millions of people became suddenly convinced that they would die quickly unless they abandoned their land, they wouldn't care to make such a change. They'd choose the possibility of dying out over a long period over some alternative that promised them long-term safety but cut them off from their culture. The artificial 'land' wouldn't exist anyway, because such a long lead-time would be needed to construct the islands. You'd need to have all that space pre-sold, so to speak, in order to go ahead.
User avatar
Robert Tulip

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6499
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
18
Location: Canberra
Has thanked: 2719 times
Been thanked: 2661 times
Contact:
Australia

Re: Climate Apocalypse

Unread post

This 'To The Sea' idea can be considered as science fiction, except that I do think it is realistic.

If we have sea level rise, there are tens of millions of people in countries such as Bangladesh, Vietnam and China whose homes will be inundated. As well, there are now tens of millions of refugees and internally displaced persons who cannot find another country to accept them. These people might well be highly interested in moving to new permanent ocean based locations if this can be proven to be feasible, and if it provides a base to manage new agricultural and aquacultural food production systems at sea.

The technological argument is that fresh water floats on sea water. The ocean is very deep, averaging more than three kilometers. A cube of water of size one kilometer (a teralitre) would provide a surface 25 meters above the ocean surface. On this scale, construction of 25 million tonnes in weight could be supported before the structure would be pushed down to the waterline. This is about 50 times the displacement of the largest current vessels. Such a structure located in the Indian Ocean would follow a stable path around the current (see map below), and could be launched on small scale and gradually expanded if successful.

This is all unproven, and needs an incremental starting point. The two technologies that can be used to explore the feasibility of these ideas are fresh water transport through the sea in fabric bags as proposed at www.waterbag.com, and ocean based algae production as proposed by the NASA OMEGA project.

Large scale algae production at sea is possibly the only way to prevent catastrophic global warming, by using the forces of nature (tide, wave, sun, current, wind) to suck carbon out of the air and convert it into food, fuel and fertilizer. My view is that this can be economically managed by using the innovative fact that fresh water floats on salt water, as a way to restore harmony with nature.

Image
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2198 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: Climate Apocalypse

Unread post

Robert Tulip wrote:Tonight I heard an interview with Professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Research.

The key points he made were

1. Current trends suggest the world will be four degrees centigrade hotter by the end of this century.
<snip>
These kinds of predictions of x degrees warming by the year xxxx are inherently preposterous. Weather is such a vastly complex process with so many interrelated and interdependent meteorological elements and phenomena. We are not even remotely close to understanding all the many points of data that come in to play. Climatologists cannot even predict a rain event in a specific locale with 100 percent accuracy. And, yet, some guy predicts the world will be four degrees warmer by the end of this century? Ultimately such absurd predictions discredit the scientific process. It may be four degrees warmer by the end of this century (or this decade) or four degrees cooler. We simply don't know.
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
Robert Tulip

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6499
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
18
Location: Canberra
Has thanked: 2719 times
Been thanked: 2661 times
Contact:
Australia

Re: Climate Apocalypse

Unread post

Geo, this "some guy" happens to be one of the world's most prestigious climate scientists, and he is talking about observed trends. You should be careful about making such denialist comments, I fear it shows how your media sources have infected you. Black propaganda of the Fox variety has led many people to hold ignorant views about climate denial, which really is as bad as holocaust denial.

In the Climate Change Science Compendium from 2009,
the United Nations Secretary General wrote:The science has become more irrevocable than ever: Climate change is happening. The evidence is all around us. And unless we act, we will see catastrophic consequences including rising sea levels, droughts and famine, and the loss of up to a third of the world’s plant and animal species. We need a new global agreement to tackle climate change, and this must be based on the soundest, most robust and up-to-date science available. Through its overview of the latest definitive science, this Climate Change Science Compendium reaffirms the strong evidence outlined in the IPCC’s 4th Assessment Report that climate change is continuing apace. In fact, this report shows that climate change is accelerating at a much faster pace than was previously thought by scientists. New scientific evidence suggests important tipping points, leading to irreversible changes in major Earth systems and ecosystems, may already have been reached or even overtaken. Climate change, more than any other challenge facing the world today, is a planetary crisis that will require strong, focused global action.
Perhaps Geo, you may care to read some of this book, available for free online, or watch the lecture linked at the opening post, unless you find the truth too painful.
Post Reply

Return to “Science & Technology”