Live data from Hacker News

A Brief History of the Corporation: 1600 to 2100

ribbonfarm.com

31–35 of 35 posts

Re: A Brief History of the Corporation: 1600 to 2100

#31
post #28
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your statements are just completely misguided. We're finding more and more sources of energy everyday. Our sources for energy isn't decreasing; it's increasing because techology allows us to extract more oil, more natural gas, more coal, and more uranium, as well as discovering newer and more efficient means to extract energy. We're also innovating on renewables; we're rapidly finding newer methods to get more energy…

> We're finding more and more sources of energy everyday. Excuse me, this flies in the face of everything I know of. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. No source of energy even remotely comparable to fossil fuels in power density and convenience is in sight. Unless you discovered a way to build a fusion reactor? > Predicting a doom and gloom because we'll run out of fossil fuels makes you forget tha…

I see your claim of peak oil and raise you one statue of David. Human creativity is one counter to the second law of thermodynamics.

Peak oil/resource depletion feels very much like global warming to me in that the main advocates of it make the data fit their theories instead of vice-versa. For example, back in '04, it was seriously argued that the peak oil crisis would cause me to now be living in a tipi in the post-oil dystopia. Instead, my living standard has only increased since '04.

Now, Ugo is arguing that even if we continue to acquire new sources of natural resources[1], that the resulting pollution will destroy civilization. Bollocks I say! Furthermore, I question why he and his ilk are so invested in the collapse of Western civilization.

[1] http://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Debunking-the-Myth-of-P...

Re: A Brief History of the Corporation: 1600 to 2100

#32
post #7

Culture, policitics, war and business = decreasing strength order? Isn't this almost the opposite of the Maslow hierarchy, with food, safety, belonging and esteem, self-actualizing? He is only a few paragraphs in and he has drawn a causation diagram backwards.

I think he's saying that it can be harder to change cultures than it is to say, simply invade a country. The US rolled into Iraq with no problems at all, but how long would it take to truly change the people and culture? Would it even be possible?

> I think he's saying that it can be harder to change cultures than it is to say, simply invade a country. The US rolled into Iraq with no problems at all, but how long would it take to truly change the people and culture? Would it even be possible?

Why would it be necessary? The West could easily get oil from iraq without any involvement of the Iraqi people.

I write "the west" because the US doesn't get much of its oil from the middle east and oil's fungibility is a US choice. Neither of those things are written in stone.

As a matter of policy, the US could decide that oil doesn't leave the western hemisphere and let the europeans, chinese, and anyone else who cared handle the middle east. The western hemisphere has more than enough resources to handle US needs and europe could decide to simply take the oil and ignore the people. There's not much that any of the middle eastern countries/peoples could do about that.

Re: A Brief History of the Corporation: 1600 to 2100

#33
post #19
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the planet is finite. Resources are limited. We'll be running out of them fast. Our earth is just one of billions of planets in our galaxy alone.

Science fiction author Charles Stross on why we're unlikely to ever leave our solar system: http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2007/06/the_high...

I read the article but not the comments, so perhaps I'm repeating something there...

> a closed-circuit life support system capable of keeping a human occupant alive indefinitely, for many years at a stretch, with zero failures and losses, and capable where necessary of providing medical intervention. Let's throw in a willing astronaut (the fool!) and stick them inside this assembly. It's going to be pretty boring in there, but I think we can conceive of our minimal manned interstellar mission as being about the size and mass of a Mercury capsule

Perhaps the most effective means of interstellar travel is bases within asteroids, not spaceships. Future humans could build habitats inside asteroids, then with a few nudges upset the entire gravitational equilibrium of the asteroid belt, slinging some asteroids out of the solar system. We're probably able to compute the most optimum way of doing this within the next century, and humans are more likely to survive interstellar trips buried inside asteroids than in a spaceship's husk.

> you're not going to get any news back from the other end in less than decades.

> transporting our Mercury-capsule sized expedition to Proxima Centauri in less than a lifetime.

Why not one-way trips? The new civilizations might consider themselves new "countries", unworthy of interference by Earth in their internal affairs.

I should add we have another billion or so years of life left in our Sun, before we really need to leave our solar system: that gives us enough time to learn how to do one-way interstellar trips. I concede that in the meantime, Earth's population is likely to suddenly drop a few times. The projected 9 billion inhabitants in year 2050 seems unstable, though new food/fuel technology may come before then.

As for mining the asteroids, perhaps it'll be done by Earth-based avatars. Certainly the Moon can be mined that way, with its 1 second response time, but Mars would be more of a challenge, requiring machine-human cooperation in the processing.

Re: A Brief History of the Corporation: 1600 to 2100

#34
post #31
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We're finding more and more sources of energy everyday. Excuse me, this flies in the face of everything I know of. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. No source of energy even remotely comparable to fossil fuels in power density and convenience is in sight. Unless you discovered a way to build a fusion reactor? > Predicting a doom and gloom because we'll run out of fossil fuels makes you forget tha…

I see your claim of peak oil and raise you one statue of David. Human creativity is one counter to the second law of thermodynamics. Peak oil/resource depletion feels very much like global warming to me in that the main advocates of it make the data fit their theories instead of vice-versa. For example, back in '04, it was seriously argued that the peak oil crisis would cause me to now be living in a tipi in the post…

> Peak oil/resource depletion feels very much like global warming to me in that the main advocates of it make the data fit their theories instead of vice-versa.

OK, please show me the data contradicting peak oil (even the IEA recognizes it now), or climate change. And I'm the one that "wants to believe". Heck, you people drive me mad.

Re: A Brief History of the Corporation: 1600 to 2100

#35
post #32
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think he's saying that it can be harder to change cultures than it is to say, simply invade a country. The US rolled into Iraq with no problems at all, but how long would it take to truly change the people and culture? Would it even be possible?

> I think he's saying that it can be harder to change cultures than it is to say, simply invade a country. The US rolled into Iraq with no problems at all, but how long would it take to truly change the people and culture? Would it even be possible? Why would it be necessary? The West could easily get oil from iraq without any involvement of the Iraqi people. I write "the west" because the US doesn't get much of its…

> Why would it be necessary?

I have no idea; it's a purely hypothetical question meant to demonstrate that wars are "easy" compared to changing a culture.

Post reply on HN