Hi. Wow...

[reasonvemotion]

So, I guess, it is justifiable, by any means, to destroy civilization before it destroys the planet.

[SpheresOfBalance]

About what you were saying in the video: you have no proof that humanity is about to be extinct in any way or is on the course of it.

Can you not do the math? "About" is ambiguous, sure, as it all depends on what relative amount of time one uses as a frame of reference. But make no mistake, if mankind stays his apathetic course, he shall wipe himself out, it's only a matter of time. It would seem you need to take a serious look at the numbers.

[SpheresOfBalance]

So, I guess, it is justifiable, by any means, to destroy civilization before it destroys the planet.

I for one do not like the phrase "destroy civilization." I see that to "greatly modify" is in order though.

[homegrown]

VOT: It's perfectly usual to rephrase a persons words to communicate to them how they're coming across. It's a philosophically null point to suggest I'm attributing things to you you've not said. You seemed to me to infer it. If you do not intend to infer it I may have misunderstood your meaning but I'm not attributing things to you you've not said.

"If you wish to impress..."

I don't seek to impress you but merely to communicate an idea. That's more difficult than you'd think. A little bombast is one means of encouraging people to engage. Like now. Instead, of making the argument I'm talking to you about how to argue. Boring!

No proof? I can't prove something that hasn't happened yet. I can only predict it will happen. The reasons for making that prediction are manifold, but most fundamentally - are grounded in a relationship between the validity of the knowledge bases of action and causal reality. The energy crisis, climate change, over-population and degradation of the environment are the consequence of acting in the course of religious, political and economic ideologies false to a scientific understanding of reality. For the sake of those ideas we are a species divided, having employed science to create nuclear and biological weapons while the technology to solve the energy crisis is not applied.

valid=number of perceptions of reality reconciled in terms of a conceptual scheme. i.e. Newtons laws of planetary motion had x validity whereas Einstein's relativity X+n.

hey, i'm moving. log on later. hg.

[The Voice of Time]

Can you not do the math?

Are you unaware of the ability for human beings to adapt? You can't treat humans like one-minded machines generating the same garbage over again. We are fully capable of such an act before you bring up any dumb abstracted examples, but it is not natural for the human to stay put, he moves on.

The mass of creativity in the world does, unfortunately not, compute. No proof then.

[The Voice of Time]

VOT: It's perfectly usual to rephrase a persons words to communicate to them how they're coming across.

What the fuck? What idiot are you? You can't rephrase a persons words because if you do that then you are making those words, and not the person you such-called "rephrased". Who gives a shit what kind of mental image you have of what I wrote, it is what I wrote itself which matters! Stick to facts and don't go off fantasizing!

It's a philosophically null point to suggest I'm attributing things to you you've not said.

Please tell me how it is, as you say, "philosophically null point", because that sentence I regret to ever have heard before, unless you are referring to some kind of conversation ethics, then I'd like to know what I did wrong, as you indeed did put words in my mouth, or else you should have phrased yourself in such a way we would've known you were talking out of the blue, and in extension: likely to yourself, as sentences that has never been said can't be argued with unless you have some kind of Multiple Personality Disorder.

I don't seek to impress you but merely to communicate an idea. That's more difficult than you'd think. A little bombast is one means of encouraging people to engage. Like now. Instead, of making the argument I'm talking to you about how to argue. Boring!

If you don't know how to work your way through decent and good argumentation you should learn it. That, as you say, that you find it boring, only makes me think you are uninterested in improving yourself whatsoever, which in turn shows that you are hostile to other people's opinion of your own capabilities, in turn isolating you from vastness of reality, into the narrower one of yourself.

No proof? I can't prove something that hasn't happened yet. I can only predict it will happen.

And on what grounds should people take you seriously? We all know about the stuff, but what is it that makes you special and worth listening to, instead of being "just another doomsday crier".

The reasons for making that prediction are manifold, but most fundamentally - are grounded in a relationship between the validity of the knowledge bases of action and causal reality.

In other less pompous words, you mean that science predicts 1+1 = 2. However, you yet fail to understand that science doesn't give any understanding to its own data. Science doesn't understand what all the data means, you are the one, through your ideas, that give it meaning, gives it emphasis. Now I'm interested in why we should emphasize what you say and in extension your solutions to the problem, because there's no relationship between the data that all have access to in some form and the solutions you bring up other than quite... ehem. IDEOLOGICAL ONES!

The energy crisis, climate change, over-population and degradation of the environment are the consequence of acting in the course of religious, political and economic ideologies false to a scientific understanding of reality.

Please tell me what that "scientific understanding of reality" is, because to me that understanding seems only to shift focus from one political "ideology", as you call it, to another, excluding in the process, I may note, the opinions of individuals on the matter. A lot of people like it very well how they have it. I think it's a very dreamy state for instance to think that Americans and Europeans could ever be part of the same government, as their political opinions varies widely.

For the sake of those ideas we are a species divided, having employed science to create nuclear and biological weapons while the technology to solve the energy crisis is not applied.

That's were you're wrong, the technology to solve the energy crisis is gaining ever more momentum. In Africa solar energy is among the only sources of energy accessible on the countryside.

The German new solar PV installations increased by about 7.6 GW in 2012, and solar PV provided 18 TWh (billion kilowatt-hours) of electricity in 2011, about 3% of total electricity. Some market analysts expect this could reach 25 percent by 2050. Germany has a goal of producing 35% of electricity from renewable sources by 2020 and 100% by 2050.

As Germany is a highly developed society in all possible ways, their consumption is quite high also, making 3% a lot of solar power (especially since solar power is not a very efficient mean of producing electricity).

Wind provides 30% of the electricity generated in Denmark. Denmark is a long-time leader in wind energy, and as of May 2011 Denmark derives 3.1 percent of its Gross Domestic Product from renewable (Clean) energy technology and energy efficiency, or around € 6.5 billion ($9.4 billion)

Also in Denmark: "CO2 emissions from energy production fell from 49.4 to 44.3 million tons, from 2010 to 2011, a decline of 10%". In Norway we are suffering from over-forestation, meaning we suffer from too much forests and the incapacity to cut it down fast enough.

valid=number of perceptions of reality reconciled in terms of a conceptual scheme. i.e. Newtons laws of planetary motion had x validity whereas Einstein's relativity X+n.

So what is the conceptual scheme used here?

[Bill Wiltrack]

.









What the fuck? What idiot are you? You can't rephrase a persons words because if you do that then you are making those words, and not the person you such-called "rephrased". Who gives a shit what kind of mental image you have of what I wrote, it is what I wrote itself which matters! Stick to facts and don't go off fantasizing!




In reference to the eloquence above...

I don't think there is a you and an I.


We exist exclusively inside your reality and we are all the same. We are you.



You are actually having a discussion inside of you; your left brain talking to your right brain...Which is also, at the same time, me.


So, go easy on your self.









.................................................................................










.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Can you not do the math? "About" is ambiguous, sure, as it all depends on what relative amount of time one uses as a frame of reference. But make no mistake, if mankind stays his apathetic course, he shall wipe himself out, it's only a matter of time. It would seem you need to take a serious look at the numbers.

Are you unaware of the ability for human beings to adapt? You can't treat humans like one-minded machines generating the same garbage over again. We are fully capable of such an act before you bring up any dumb abstracted examples, but it is not natural for the human to stay put, he moves on.

The mass of creativity in the world does, unfortunately not, compute. No proof then.

It would seem that we agree, so why argue, note the red highlights above. So you agree that man is screwed if he "stays his course" (does not adapt)? My point is that his greed is too great, hence the place we currently find ourselves. You assume that the rich and powerful, as I doubt you are one, (so I wonder where the "we" comes from), care more about the species than they do their bank accounts. It's just that I tend to doubt it. My point is that I see man blinded by the glittering prize to such an extent that either he cannot or refuses to see the writing on the wall.

A quote from one of my favorite Rush tunes:
"The big bang, took and shook the world, shot down the rising sun.
the hopeful depend, on a world without end, what ever the hopeless may say."

[SpheresOfBalance]

.









What the fuck? What idiot are you? You can't rephrase a persons words because if you do that then you are making those words, and not the person you such-called "rephrased". Who gives a shit what kind of mental image you have of what I wrote, it is what I wrote itself which matters! Stick to facts and don't go off fantasizing!




In reference to the eloquence above...

I don't think there is a you and an I.


We exist exclusively inside your reality and we are all the same. We are you.



You are actually having a discussion inside of you; your left brain talking to your right brain...Which is also, at the same time, me.


So, go easy on your self.









.................................................................................










.

Yes Bill the eloquence of which you speak, is so out of character for VoT, at least compared to the time of his arrival here, such that I wonder either, if it's really him, or if something huge is bothering him, or maybe he's just tired of placing his best foot forward, and now we are seeing the real VoT. I for one had much more respect for his words, when he was kinder, more diplomatic, seemingly more understandable of the differences between us all. For being in his twenties, I thought he was way ahead of his time, maybe I was premature.

[The Voice of Time]

I'm not in my twenties, I am exactly 20 years old. SoP I dunno what you're talking about, I've never been nice in any particular fashion, less aggressive perhaps, but not nice per se.

My comment to you SoP that you can't treat human beings as generating the same garbage over again is that you think humankind is on a, quote, "apathetic course", and my point is that it is an illusion that humankind is on such a course. We've been on such a course before, but the awareness of environment has much more a popular idea than you seem to acknowledge so far and there is a lot of things being done all over the world to counter environmental and population problems.

Humans are not stupid, and your comment of an "apathetic course" seems to propose they are, and I think you've got a distorted view of humanity if you think that humans actually need anything more than the acceleration and momentum already in-place today in politics locally, regionally, nationally and globally.

[Bernard]

Politics? How is the that going to strengthen the species? I think biological fitness is the only benchmark we can use to truly adduce fitness of species for suvival and we are so on a downhill run. Politics fix tha? Nup.

[reasonvemotion]

We are already using the resources of a planet and a half.

What will happen when the oil supply ceases. Imagine the chaos.

We are already over populated, how can this be resolved? War, worldwide? or some horrible new disease, that spreads like wild fire.

Water?

Food?

All this has a use by date.

How can any of this be remedied, other than going elsewhere, perhaps another planet and then that would be for the wealthy only.

So the rest of us can kiss our existence goodbye.

Unless, someone can offer a realistic solution, I can't see a remedy in sight.

[Arising_uk]

...What will happen when the oil supply ceases. Imagine the chaos.

There will be great change when this happens. As we approach this point the other resources will become cost-effective to use, so methane hydrates, nuclear, solar, tidal, etc. Plus theres still a lot of coal about.

We are already over populated, how can this be resolved? War, worldwide? or some horrible new disease, that spreads like wild fire.

Apparently we've been stabilizing. The best way so far of reducing births is prosperity and education for women.

Water?

This is an issue.

Food?

As is this but this might be doable as we're getting to the stage were we can grow protein. Theres also a real problem with land compaction.
[quoteAll this has a use by date.[/quote]Maybe maybe not.

How can any of this be remedied, other than going elsewhere, perhaps another planet and then that would be for the wealthy only.

Its always been this way, its only been a brief blip were we've been thinking otherwise.

So the rest of us can kiss our existence goodbye.

Maybe maybe not but it might be a reduced existence for the sheltered wealthy in the 'West'.

Unless, someone can offer a realistic solution, I can't see a remedy in sight.

The realistic solution is pretty much as homegrown mentions, start listening to science and drop religion and ideology.

[reasonvemotion]

and.....

[homegrown]

Voice of Time,

This idea of 'acting in the course of...' is my wording, and indicates the ideological rationale for action - I maintain must result in extinction. For example, its frequently argued that scarcity of fossil fuels will make it economically rational to apply renewable energy technologies. That would be 'action in the course of...capitalist ideology, only it won't happen. There are various hidden costs not accounted for in such an analysis. It's not merely the capital cost of applying the technology, but the loss of value of fossil fuel reserves - and further costs making cars, gas pipes and gas heater, power stations and so on compatible with a new fuel source. Action in the course of another rationale is necessary. Common acceptance of a scientific understanding of reality and the survival ethic provide that rationale.

P.S. Why is a cat not called a dog? Because there's an arbitrary relationship between signified and signifier, between name and object.

regards,

hg.

http://youtu.be/Q9A2LqGn4Yo