Over 350 Is Environmental Doom, Supposedly
Robert Cohen
controversy are ...what?
I am not a scientist, or even close, and claims with statistics put
me to sleep.
And, btw, I also talked my way out of jury duty--"I read about the
bribery case in a newspaper," which was actually true: But I also
didn't really want to have to judge the defendant's actions.
This alarming/alarmist article is hopefully "crying wolf" and
propaganda.
Since I don't know, I will not argue technical esoterica about the
issue.
Either side may persuade me depending on how i feel after lunch,
though common sensical prudence is generally on the green side imho.
Immortalist
> This is philosophy, and the philosophical aspects of environmental
> controversy are ...what?
>
Philosophy’s ultimate purpose is disciplined reflection on life’s
“big” questions, universal questions about the meaning of Being that
have occupied human beings since the dawn of history. These questions,
simply put, are “What are we?” and “Why are we?” That is, what is the
ultimate nature of the universe we live in and what does it mean to be
human in it? These animating questions immediately generate more
detailed questions in metaphysics (what is ultimately real? Why should
there be anything at all?), philosophy of religion (is there a mind at
the foundation of things and is it accessible to us?), ethics (what
belongs to living a good life and what values are worthy of our
allegiance?) and aesthetics (what is the nature of beauty and the
basis of artistic discrimination?).
http://www.mercer.edu/philosophy/aboutphi.html
Another big question is "what is knowledge" and all that. I think this
question raised in the article is about how to "justify an ethical
standard applied to something about the Earth" The dilemma is
metaphorical since in any finite system we find there are limits
which, if exceeded collapse the system. Therefore philosophically we
might ask that since it is more reasonable to believe that after the
level of carbon in the atmospher increases, there will be a point at
which everything gets messed up, however high that level is we could
dron if it is reached. That is a very strong version of the argument
and I dare anyone to come up with a theory that seems to have a higher
probability of being true. But now when it comes to asignnng a value,
in parts per million, of what precisely this tipping level is that
will lead to catastrophe is, we are in a more debatable area. This is
probably the main thing philosophy can do. Then by default the
argument moves into the area of philosophy known as episteology and
the area of it known a "the scientific method." But let no one fool
you, this area of science is pure philosophy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Bret Cahill
No other species ever survived without controlling it's waste.
Are people going to be different?
Bret Cahill
Shrikeback
"Bret Cahill" <BretC...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:8659a707-9128-433d...@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> AGW does introduce an issue new to philosophy:
Well, it's not really a new issue, but it does introduce
a new species of gibberspeak from Greenolas. The
things they pull out of their collective (not individualist)
ass! It serves as a cautionary tale of philosophy: Don't
Let this Sophistry and Goofiness Happen to You.
> No other species ever survived without controlling it's waste.
What the hell are you talking about? Hardly a post of
yours goes by without some statement of arbitrary horseshit,
speaking of uncontrolled waste.
What species has ever attempted to controll it's[sic] waste?
I suppose cats try to bury it. Is that why they survived?
What about dogs? I suppose some of them eat their waste,
but that's just gross. This just in on the dinosaurs:'twas waste
that killed the beast.
> Are people going to be different?
Ultimately, all good and bad things come to an end, and
the Heat Death of the Universe ought to keep you up at
night.
ZerkonX
> The dilemma is
> metaphorical since in any finite system we find there are limits which,
> if exceeded collapse the system.
I think 'finite' is not the best choice. While true, it does not convey
what is more the issue which is sustainability. Sustainability recognizes
a regenerative system so not so linear or closed as 'finite'.
Ecology is of course balance. We live, think, breath only because of a
human inclusive, physical, ever changing balance that is self-sustaining
or 'it just is there'. Problem is as far as anyone can tell, it wasn't
always 'just there' and by all indications, even if humans never existed,
it will not always be 'just there'. In this way, the human friendly
system is finite. Change happens, no matter what humans or bears or
anything else might do or not do. OK, so what?
The answer to this is philosophy because the consideration here is
basically nothing more, as you say, than a life and a death and what to
do in between and how to do it.
What is doomed, in the short term, is not the human species but rather
the dark age of techno-gluttony in which some so revel in and have become
so self-amazed. Humans will terminate this ignorance and stupidity
themselves.
jonathan
"Robert Cohen" <robt...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:e796033f-07ea-4e22...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> This is philosophy, and the philosophical aspects of environmental
> controversy are ...what?
Have we yet found the wisdom to live within nature?
Or is Nature about to reassert her power over us?
>
> I am not a scientist, or even close, and claims with statistics put
> me to sleep.
My hobby is complexity science, which attempts to connect all
the disciplines with a single scientific language.
Dynamics of Complex Systems
http://necsi.org/publications/dcs/
Self Organizing Systems Faq
http://www.calresco.org/sos/sosfaq.htm
So instead of using statistics, let's try to use examples from other fields
as analogies.
The concept of 'tipping point' is the key question in global warming
...where is that 'point'? And what happens once we reach it?
That is where people begin tossing around all kinds of stats.
Unfortunately, climate involves so much complexity that no
amount of stats can give those answers. We must learn how
to recognize the behavior we wish to understand by
observing it elsewhere.
For instance, oil prices have been going up for a very long time.
But it's been only the most recent prices increases that have
set off all kinds of indirect effects. Such as the food shortages
and riots in parts of world. Those cascading unintended effects
are signs of an approaching 'tipping point'. Which mathematically
speaking, is a point where non-linear relationships emerge.
Non-linear relationships are where large and unpredictable
effects can be generated from relatively small changes in inputs.
Where the output is not always proportional to the input.
"24. At the critical point, any size of perturbation can potentially
cause any size of effect - it is impossible to predict the size
of the effect from the size of the perturbation (for large,
analytically intractable systems). A power law distribution
is found over time, but the timing and size of any particular
perturbation is indeterminate."
http://www.calresco.org/sos/sosfaq.htm#7.2
>
> And, btw, I also talked my way out of jury duty--"I read about the
> bribery case in a newspaper," which was actually true: But I also
> didn't really want to have to judge the defendant's actions.
I've been called twice for jury duty and made sure I was picked
both times. I loved every minute of being on a jury trial.
Collective wisdom is the highest of all.
>
> This alarming/alarmist article is hopefully "crying wolf" and
> propaganda.
There are so many data sets that bias can easily pick and chose
which stats to quote. One fact must be remembered at all times
when looking at any data on this subject. The basic concept
of global warming is that as the planet warms, climate changes
will become more volatile while becoming less predictable.
Chaotic!
Which means trends and weather events will become...less...
identifiable and...less...predictable. As the planet warms
essentially...'into the dark we go'...scientifically speaking.
But the most trustworthy, even if it's also somewhat biased
is to go the official US govt agency responsible for studying
the climate of the earth....NASA. Their bias is much like
the current administration right now. Downplay but not
deny.
Earth Observatory
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/GlobalWarmingQandA/
>
> Since I don't know, I will not argue technical esoterica about the
> issue.
OK!
The world has formed a consensus.
Which means the pattern has been recognized.
Which means global warming is NOT thirty
years off, it's already here.
We're in the middle of it already.
Once a trend has been recognized, it's already
happening and too late to prevent.
Not too late to manage it though.
>
> Either side may persuade me depending on how i feel after lunch,
> though common sensical prudence is generally on the green side imho.
Since we're already there, the question must now be, what happens
....after...we reach the tipping point. Well, other natural systems give
us those answers. What happened when the Nasdaq hit it's tipping
point in the nineties? Or the more recent bubble bursting with in the
home mortgage industry?
Hint: it's not pretty a pretty picture.
However, that future is not yet certain. There are ...two and only two
futures once a tipping or critical point is approached.
One is the big crash after the bubble bursts, followed by
large unpredictable swings in behavior, until a dramatically
different equilibrium is settled upon.
The other is to gently bounce off the point, and
rebound back towards the previous equilibrium.
The rates of change, or rate of warming decides which
fate is ours. Too fast, and the first case happens where
we'll likely see the rapid, as in out of nowhere, onset
of a very long and cold ....ice age.
Not so fast and we spring gently back, settling down
on a somewhat warmer equilibrium than normal.
When I try to pull together all the large global trends
to try to determine whether the rate of change will
slow or quicken from here on out. I see the outcome
as a result of the battle between two grand forces.
One, the power of dictatorships such as in China, and other
unrestrained rising economies, to pollute all they like without
concern for what anyone thinks.
The other is market-like forces of all kinds, economic,
political and public opinion etc. Will these natural-like
forces quickly rise up and find opportunities in slowing
the rate of change of greenhouse gasses.
We must not overanalyze these questions.
Since the change itself is the result of the explosion
of life on earth. It will be natural processes of life that
govern such changes, as opposed to unnatural change
such as impacts, and other one-off events.
The answer and our future must then be firmly in
the hands of Mother Nature.
Nature creates by driving systems to the edge of chaos
and gently bouncing off.
With global warming, Nature will be taking us right
up to the precipice of disaster and give us a good long
look at what catastrophe really means. And at the last
minute, nature/natural forces will regain control over
humanity and pull us back.
The entire planet, and our future, will be better for it.
As this journey to the edge defines the point at which
natural forces, such as public opinion, free markets
and democracy...rule the earth once again. No longer
will the man-made horrors of dictatorships and wars
be the strongest force.
/This tipping point/ is where earth begins it's long needed
...Return to Nature....once and for all.
Imho.
Jonathan
Robert Cohen
> "Robert Cohen" <robtco...@msn.com> wrote in message
>
> news:e796033f-07ea-4e22...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > This is philosophy, and the philosophical aspects of environmental
> > controversy are ...what?
>
> Have we yet found the wisdom to live within nature?
> Or is Nature about to reassert her power over us?
>
>
>
> > I am not a scientist, or even close, and claims with statistics put
> > me to sleep.
>
> My hobby is complexity science, which attempts to connect all
> the disciplines with a single scientific language.
>
> Dynamics of Complex Systemshttp://necsi.org/publications/dcs/
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thanks for excelllent response: Please ignore:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/16/us/16ants.html?em&ex=1211169600&en=43d53c92275367a7&ei=5087%0A
The Rasberry Ants are fecund.
The Rasberry Ants are allegedly nearly indestructible and tres cher to
kill.
The Rasberry Ants are coming, the Rasberry Ants are coming.
At least they (apparently) don't sting & bite a la fire ants.
The first scientist that neuters 'em deserves whatever s(he) needs to
be infinitely satisfied.
$500 million wouldn't be enough to reward the Rasberry Ant plague-
solving biologist(s).
And what's this got to do with philosophy?
No natural predators (birds?) are known.
See genre 1950s B catastrophe movie--THE ROLING TOMATOS & RUSSIANS
ARE COMING--for parody.
Don't venture into yard until NIKE etal make a champion anti-stomping
tennis shoe.
Because last night I stomped two or three times on an ant near garage-
kitchen door, and it lived, wangled away, and is still loose & surely
pisssed.
It's gonna take each and every patriotic bug spray, electronic-
shocking bad mitten racquet, and diesel steam roller.
Have they tried boric acid because it works on cockroaches.
Perhaps President to be Barrak McCain will inspire the country.
Philosophical issue: What if I'm reincarnated as a $1 (plus sales tax)
can of ant spray?
Georgia Political Issue: Suspend sales tax on ant killers.
Bumper Sticker: If nuclear bombs are banned, the ants takeover.
IF ANTS ARE MURDERED, THEN WHAT DO UNCLS DO WHEN HORNY?
Robert Cohen
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Thanks for excelllent response: Please ignore:
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
editing instruction for google editor: dismember anti-stomping to
stomping
Robert Cohen
>
> - Show quoted text -
correction: the article i read in my sunday nudespaper says:
the tiny boogers do bite, and that they actually eat fire ants
hmmm, so the fire ants, which are presently in my
yard, .....aw...nevermind, i'll use chemical
unhappily, if they can't figure out how to neuter rasberry ants, the
things will likely do damage compable to termites and perhaps even
worse
here's what i'd luv to see
take kudzu
take rasberry ants
put 'em together in huge quantities
the ants apparently eat the sugar out of the plants
(get an earmark appropriation from congress re rasberry ant diabetes
#3)
make ethanol out of the crazy ants and kudzu etal weeds
we've now solved the food and fuel supply problems
http://www.ajc.com/search/content/news/stories/2008/05/18/crazyants.html