This is the most depressing chart in the world
61–70 of 92 posts
Re: This is the most depressing chart in the world
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the absence of growth the only way for an individual to get more resources is to take it from someone else. Life becomes a zero-sum game. This is a qualitative change. The game stops being who can make the most pie to who can take the most.
> In the absence of growth the only way for an individual to get more resources is to take it from someone else. Part of my point is that there are more than enough resources, what's needed is better distribution. Plus some scaling down the over-consumption of crap. Besides this "taking it from someone else" is already the case with the growth model, were not only a tiny fraction of the population has a huge percenta…
Re: This is the most depressing chart in the world
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
We had thousands of astrology and magic practicioners. It didn't make astrology or magic true in any way. You know what makes modern physics true? Falsifiability and verifiability. You build a theory, make predictions, develop an experiment, and then conduct the experiment, multiple times. Climatology stops after the first two. Granted, astronomy and cosmology operate in similar way to climatology, but we don't estab…
> You know what makes modern physics true? Falsifiability and verifiability. You build a theory, make predictions, develop an experiment, and then conduct the experiment, multiple times. Climatology stops after the first two. This is, obviously and demonstrably, wrong. The data is out there, the methodologies are out there, and there is tons of related open-source software. You can conduct your own experiments and co…
First, we seem to call different things an experiment. The guy didn't made any experiment, he just charted some data. He didn't change CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, keeping everything else equal, to check if it would affect the resulting temperature.
Next, he only charted temperatures. This doesn't prove anything related to carbon concentration by itself, and we don't have proven models to have a causality implied one way or another. (Proven with analogous strictness and confidence as the theory of gravity.)
And finally, I don't claim there is no change to the climate whatsoever. Quite the contrary; humanity has seen the climate to change over its recent history (few hundred years). I just doubt highly that the change is caused by human carbon emissions.
And personally, I think it's really arrogant to assume that humanity is powerful enough to change the climate of the whole planet at this point.
Re: This is the most depressing chart in the world
#64Why should we expect or even want constant growth? Is current level of growth even sustainable? (regarding environment, lifestyle issues --stress, depression, etc.--, quality of production, time for people to adapt to new paradigms, etc)? How about less "growth" and better distribution, more quality, less rat racing?
Growth gets you that.
Growth has made it possible to buy a fridge, an oven, a vaccum cleaner, a dishwasher and a washing machine, all for relatively trivial amounts of money. Together they made it possible for litterally millions of women to persue their dreams (whether that is to have a career, start a business or just spend more time with their children). I have no idea what kind of magic the future could hold, but I find it extremely destressing that anybody could even ask that question.
Oh and if you don't why a washing machine is necessary, http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_and_the_magic_washing_...
Re: This is the most depressing chart in the world
#65Re: This is the most depressing chart in the world
#66THIS is the most depressing chart in the world: https://stormglas.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/20131116-00180...
Re: This is the most depressing chart in the world
#67Re: This is the most depressing chart in the world
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the absence of growth the only way for an individual to get more resources is to take it from someone else. Life becomes a zero-sum game. This is a qualitative change. The game stops being who can make the most pie to who can take the most.
> In the absence of growth the only way for an individual to get more resources is to take it from someone else. Part of my point is that there are more than enough resources, what's needed is better distribution. Plus some scaling down the over-consumption of crap. Besides this "taking it from someone else" is already the case with the growth model, were not only a tiny fraction of the population has a huge percenta…
> For centuries the growth depended on plundering the third world,
Really? You think colonialism is the main driver of economics growth?
Re: This is the most depressing chart in the world
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You know what makes modern physics true? Falsifiability and verifiability. You build a theory, make predictions, develop an experiment, and then conduct the experiment, multiple times. Climatology stops after the first two. This is, obviously and demonstrably, wrong. The data is out there, the methodologies are out there, and there is tons of related open-source software. You can conduct your own experiments and co…
I don't think we're on the same page. First, we seem to call different things an experiment . The guy didn't made any experiment, he just charted some data. He didn't change CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, keeping everything else equal, to check if it would affect the resulting temperature. Next, he only charted temperatures. This doesn't prove anything related to carbon concentration by itself, and we don't hav…
Right, and the LIGO didn't create two colliding black holes to measure gravity waves, but measure gravity waves it did.
"To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning." [1]
> And personally, I think it's really arrogant to assume that humanity is powerful enough to change the climate of the whole planet at this point.
So your disagreement is based on superstitious beliefs, not the scientific method. Exactly as predicted in my previous post.
[1] "Rules for the study of natural philosophy", Newton transl 1999, pp. 794–6, after Book 3, The System of the World.