h a l f b a k e r y(Serving suggestion.)
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Long 'bakery
Who will check your ideas 5 centuries from now? | |
The HalfBakery officially franchises with the Long Now foundation, to ensure that the site remains live and functional for the next 10,000 years. A solar-powered solid-state server is installed in a mountain top location, tended by a hereditary caste of bakespeoples. Interfaces are provided by wireless,
electrical cable, and mechanical vibrating tongue to allow connection to the server by whatsoever method is least appropriate. Etc.
Dark forest theory?
https://www.youtube...watch?v=9EH1G4EwljM
[Skewed, Mar 17 2019]
Dark Forest Theory
https://www.google....cshid=1552848478267
[theircompetitor, Mar 17 2019]
(?) Why is it so cool to be gloomy
https://humanprogress.org/article?p=1613
[theircompetitor, Mar 18 2019]
Poverty decline in absolute numbers
http://datatopics.w...-01-no-poverty.html
[MaxwellBuchanan, Mar 18 2019]
[link]
|
| |
//hereditary caste of bakespeoples// |
|
| |
I'm given to understand the elusive bakespeoples, by their
very nature, rarely (if ever, in some cases) interact with
real
people of any gender,
far less those of the opposite gender for long enough at a
stretch to satisfy the more normal requirements of
procreation. |
|
| |
We may have to resort to the less normal requirements of
procreation. |
|
| |
If anyone know's what they are could they tell me? |
|
| |
I could run off a few clones to get things started. |
|
| |
It's doubtful that there be much life on earth of
any higher form in 100 years time, given the rate
of progression of over consumption, pollution,
habitat loss, mass extinctions, and made made
global warming. |
|
| |
A //higher life form// in common use means "any" multi
cell
organism, including plants as well as animals. |
|
| |
Do you honestly think any damage (pollution or other) we
can do
to the planet will be able to destroy all multi cell life on
the
planet inside 100 years (or even at all) [xen]? |
|
| |
Any
pollution sufficient to impact our species significantly can
be expected to end further pollution production from us ~
which means? |
|
| |
[looks expectantly at the class] |
|
| |
"Any
species still around after the extinction (or merely a
significant reduction of) the human population can be
expected to be just fine." |
|
| |
Good luck with that thinking process..... micro
plastics are in virtually everything now, and are
bound to increase in concentration in time; there
is a mass reduction in the world's vital insect
population; meanwhile global warming is
accelerating to the point of no return. It's time for
Max to make is clones. If they can eat each other
then they might survive a bit longer. |
|
| |
What can I say [xen?], OK you win, I'm persuaded, you're an
idiot. |
|
| |
[aside : that was what you were aiming for with all
your trolling to date right? well, mission accomplished!
good job!] |
|
| |
//global warming is accelerating to the point of no return// |
|
| |
No return? We aren't anywhere near that, in fact arguably
no such
thing exists. It just depends on how many people you're
willing to kill. |
|
| |
If we had a war tomorrow & kill 80% of the
population that would (easily) put an end for all practical
purposes to further human pollution of the planet ~ & the
reduced emissions from farming & industrial
activities caused by the removal of that 80% slice of the
population is also more than enough to actually reverse
global warming in exactly the same way the kill-off of the
American population occasioned by the arrival of
Europeans on the continent led to that mini Ice-age we
experienced shortly after. |
|
| |
I'm not advocating that as something we should do..
just pointing out the flaws in your misuse of the words
//point of no return// in this context. |
|
| |
I think a good heuristic in answering the question
"how many people are you willing to kill" is to assume
zero and go from there. |
|
| |
So if someone suggests, say, a point of no return,
consider that in the context of not actually
murdering anyone, since I'd imagine that's the likely
contextual basis from which the original comment
came - it used to be the case this would go without
having to be explicitly pointed out, but I guess these
are the times we're living in. |
|
| |
//guess these are the times we're living in// |
|
| |
If you live in times where the Defense Secretary
says he wants separate laws for the armed forces
so they can't be prosecuted
for murder, if they do actually murder someone, then yes,
pretty much :) |
|
| |
But that aside, it's more that I'm trying to explain that the
global warming & pollution we're creating is very unlikely to
be either the "end of the world", the "end of all life" or
even the "end of the human race" ~ more of a die-back than
a die-off ~ it should probably be thought of more like a
steam engines self-regulating pressure release valve.. |
|
| |
Once
we've done enough damage to our environment to cause
significant deaths in our own population that automatically
reduces the pollution we cause ~ it will be accompanied by
a significant period of extinctions of other animals yes ~ but
as normal for these things will be followed by an
explosion of new species ~ it's highly unlikely to
cause the extinction of humans though ~ lots of
deaths,
maybe wars for resources, significant
reduction in
world population for sure, but human extinction? no, we'll
still be here when the world has settled to it's new normal,
just not all of us. |
|
| |
Taking all that up there ^ into consideration. |
|
| |
//I think a good heuristic in answering the question "how
many people are you willing to kill" is to assume zero// |
|
| |
I think it's safe to say today's world leaders (whoever you
think that is) gave up on that
"heuristic" a long time ago. |
|
| |
The only chance to follow through with that "heuristic" is to
get a serious grip
on world carbon emissions & population growth by
restricting births (like the Chinese did but have now
abandoned), I don't see any persuasive signs any attempt at
either is being seriously considered ~ which leaves only the
conclusion they've decided (any that have actually
made a conscious decision that is) to just let it happen &
the devil take the hindmost. |
|
| |
In case you hadn't guessed from the quotes, I'm not sure you
really meant heuristic there :) |
|
| |
//If the halfbakery went offline for 10K years, |
|
| |
(psssst Don't give Jutta ideas) |
|
| |
try as I might, I see very little difference between today's
climate alarmists and those that were calling on
Christendom to repent before the world ends. |
|
| |
That wholesale repentance was quite as likely as the
implementation of the actual things you'd have to do to cut
carbon to the desired levels of the alarmists. |
|
| |
And the world is just about as likely to end as Jesus is to (re)
appear. |
|
| |
We've lost 100M plus in WWII. Similar probably in WWI. Horrible Spanish Flue. |
|
| |
Real events with real consequences, not requiring zombies or carbon emissions. We've
never yet had a meaningful exchange of nuclear weapons even. |
|
| |
Carbon is the biggest threat to national security? When a new second amendment law
could split the US? Tribalism driven by social networks is a bigger threat to national
security. The creeping Cultural Revolution that devalues civilization and is
increasingly making the lords of the flies bolder in their nihilism is a bigger threat to
the human inhabitants of the planet. And the roaches, notwithstanding [xenzag]s
hand wringing, will do fine. |
|
| |
The Earth has a 'human' cold. Whether it turns into a fever and death seems a stretch. Most problems can be engineered, though. |
|
| |
// "Any species still around after the extinction (or merely a
significant reduction of) the human population can be expected to
be just fine." // |
|
| |
Unless we start the clathrate release just before going extinct. |
|
| |
Or the dark forest theory. |
|
| |
//Carbon is the biggest threat to national security?// |
|
| |
All known terrorists have been (& are) carbon based life
forms.. ergo. |
|
| |
//the dark forest theory// |
|
| |
The what? [Googles] Oh bum! [link] well, that's it then. |
|
| |
[Frantically scrabbles through old tat at the bottom of a
draw] Aha! there it is [pulls out an electronic thumb]. |
|
| |
Well,
I'm
off then, does
anyone know when
the next Vogon Constructor Fleet is due in our vicinity? |
|
| |
I think the dark forest theory nicely justifies this idea. |
|
| |
Not to stand firmly in any specific corner, but there
are some forms of pollution that will likely
outlive us and not be significantly reduced when we
die off or thin out. Detroit, for example. |
|
| |
Before that point happens there will be a war for
resources. |
|
| |
//And the world is just about as likely to end as Jesus is to (re) appear.// - yes, you're right - the world will be fine, it's just the people living on it who will be wiped out. |
|
| |
//it's just the people living on it who will be wiped out.// |
|
| |
Accept they won't be [hippo], just most of them, and only
for a while. |
|
| |
//more of a die-back than a die-off ~ it should probably be
thought of more like a steam engines self-regulating
pressure release valve..// |
|
| |
When pollution is enough to cause significant levels of
human death it automatically reduces itself by killing off
some of it's own primary cause so it stops (or rather,
reduces
significantly).. we die back, pollution drops,
environment recovers, we breed, we pollute (again).. rinse
&
repeat until you get bored with it then (maybe) think about
using
more eco-friendly tech & initiating population controls to
keep the population at sustainable levels. |
|
| |
I call it the yo-yo effect. |
|
| |
Again, a good "rule of thumb" to use when making considered remarks on
most any subject, is to try and stick to the premise that "significant
levels of human death" is something in and of itself to be avoided. I care
little for how the world evolves post such an event, and would prefer it
if we concentrated on avoiding that circumstance in the first place,
rather than nit-picking and point-scoring over what's likely or unlikely
to happen later - that seems, at best to be an academic exercise. And
whilst I relish the prospect of having more academia than less, it's
something that is predicated on not having "significant levels of human
death" in the longer term. |
|
| |
//yes, you're right - the world will be fine, it's just the
people living on it who will be wiped out.// [hippo] the
prophets of Revelation had irrefutable evidence too. |
|
| |
Those that think they are so great at predicting should look
at Facebook's stock price about 53 weeks ago. And think
about what 100 years really is. |
|
| |
//Again, a good "rule of thumb" to use when making
considered remarks on most any subject, is to try and stick
to the premise that "significant levels of human death" is
something in and of itself to be avoided// |
|
| |
"I don't want to hear about it because it's
not nice" seems to be what you're (very politely) saying
[zen]? sorry if I've
misunderstood.. |
|
| |
Again, a good "rule of thumb" to use when making
considered remarks on most any subject, is to try and stick
to the premise that "ignoring reality (facts or the truth)
just
so you can keep thinking happy thoughts" is something in
and of itself to be avoided. |
|
| |
Pretending the world is other than it is just so you can feel
"comfortable" is a really stupid way to approach things if
you want to try & work out what's happening or how stuff
works.. in short, it's an unscientific approach to problem
solving that's liable to get you killed ("Oh, he's got a knife,
& he's coming towards me? he must want to trim my
toenails for me, how nice! .. ) it's also pretty stupid, but I'm
repeating myself now. |
|
| |
Ignore the
not
nice
fact doing nothing instead of doing something will
cause lots of people to die & guess what? .. lots of people
die.. things won't not-happen just because you closed your
eyes
stuffed your fingers in your ears & sang "la la la", that's not
some kind of magic spell, it won't work. |
|
| |
Edit: [glances up at prior text] hmm.. I would like to
apologize for my (frequent) inability to make points without
resorting to sarcasm.. sorry. |
|
| |
Somehow I don't think that's what he's saying. |
|
| |
//Why is it so cool to be gloomy// |
|
| |
//"When the Swedish statistician and public health expert
Hans Rosling began asking people that question in 2013, he
was astounded by their responses. Only 5% of 1,005
Americans got the right answer: Extreme poverty has been
cut almost in half"// |
|
| |
Extreme poverty has been cut in half, what about less
extreme poverty? what he's actually saying there is "Hey,
the number of
people who would starve to death without state
intervention or resorting to crime (some sort of theft,
robbery or fraud, selling drugs maybe) in less than a month
(or whatever the appropriate figure is) has halved, isn't that
good" while ignoring the figures for the number of people
that
would starve to death in more than a month without state
intervention or turning to crime to make up the shortfall in
their income. |
|
| |
So.. the fact of the matter is just as many are probably in a
position
where they'd
starve without benefits or crime to supplement their
income but they'll take longer to do it, & that's good is
it. |
|
| |
Typical misappropriation of one fact to try & claim
something else isn't
true.. & the primary cause of my personal "gloominess", it
really pisses me off to be lied to like this, I find it
insulting (because it presumes I'm too stupid to spot the lie)
&
that's exactly what he's doing here.. lying to me. |
|
| |
//the fact of the matter is just as many will probably starve without benefits or crime to supplement their income but they'l just take longer to do it// - Hans Rosling was pretty good at stats and at the presentation of global development data, so I assume you've got some pretty rock-solid, compelling evidence for this claim - ?? |
|
| |
a misuse of facts is to highlight income inequality when a
person with welfare and an Android phone and
running water in their house lives better than most humans
that have ever lived, or to say that Warren Buffet pays a
lower tax rate than his secretary when the federal tax
burden is primarily born by the rich. |
|
| |
Carry on being gloomy, by all means. |
|
| |
//I assume you've got some pretty rock-solid, compelling
evidence// |
|
| |
For the UK? yes, benefits & benefits in work figures have
increased, you expect me to dig them out of
the ONS for you?
do it yourself. |
|
| |
//when a person with welfare and an Android phone..// |
|
| |
Never had one, but that irrelevance aside, If you think
anyone on benefits
of any description gets a
good life &
isn't living a hand to mouth existence not all that
incomparable to slavery you're.. well, I haven't the words,
not polite ones anyway. |
|
| |
//if you think anyone on benefits gets a good life & isn't living a hand to mouth existence not all that incomparable to slavery// - This is not something I've said. On the other hand you now seem to be saying that significant numbers of people in the UK are starving to death because of poverty and that the ONS has data on this which will back up your claim. |
|
| |
//This is not something I've said// |
|
| |
Was talking to [their] on that bit not you, edited to make
clear. |
|
| |
//you now seem to be saying that significant numbers of
people in the UK are starving to death because of poverty// |
|
| |
My turn //This is not something I've said// I said "would" IF
they didn't have benefits OR turn to some form of crime to
supplement their income. |
|
| |
//that the ONS has data on this which will back up your
claim// |
|
| |
The claim I actually made, yes. |
|
| |
As Lenin famously said, if the rich are unhappy, it's their
own fault. No doubt it's also their fault that everyone else
is unhappy. |
|
| |
It sucks to be on assistance. Sucks more to have to use an
outhouse. Sucks living paycheck to paycheck. Sucks more
to have people shooting at you. |
|
| |
The man may be keeping them down with free cable, but
they'll keep getting by. |
|
| |
//No doubt it's also their fault that everyone else is
unhappy// |
|
| |
Why wouldn't it be? if you steal from someone, use them as
a slave, tell them it's
their own fault, to stop whining & just kindly shut up & die
you don't honestly expect them not to castrate you & feed
you you're own bits while they roast your toes (still
attached) do you? |
|
| |
"Eat the rich" there's no need to be nice about it &
kill them first though (after all, a little torture can only be
good for their
souls). |
|
| |
yes, yes, it all went downhill with the invention of
agriculture. If only we could go back to our roots and eat
only organic without the benefit of carbon producing fire. |
|
| |
//If only we could go back to our roots and eat only organic
without the benefit of carbon producing fire// |
|
| |
Not at all, I prefer my (long) pork well toasted, the crackling
is the best
bit. |
|
| |
//Until the mood is misjudged and they don yellow vests.// |
|
| |
I'm a little ashamed of the English that we haven't already
done this, but at the same time (perversely) a little proud
of
the
unsurpassed cunning conniving venality of our leaders in
managing to stave off such a thing where the french have
failed.. lets just say my feelings are "complicated?" |
|
| |
Then again, maybe our lords & masters have just been a bit
lucky so far? |
|
| |
luckily then France had already invented all the necessary
things to quell social unrest down, including higher taxation
of the wealthy |
|
| |
And every 20 years someone translates the idea into
words of the current generation along with cultural
notes and joke explanation if applicable. |
|
| |
From [theircompetitor]s link: |
|
| |
"Has the percentage of the world population that lives in extreme poverty almost doubled, almost halved or stayed the same over the past 20 years? When the Swedish statistician and public health expert Hans Rosling began asking people that question in 2013, he was astounded by their responses. Only 5% of 1,005 Americans got the right answer: Extreme poverty has been cut almost in half." |
|
| |
I think I get why so many people got that wrong and it's not what he thinks.
The numbers are confusing when dealing with an inflating population. By asking for a percentage of poverty stricken comparison then yes, the percentage of living humans now in poverty is less than half what it once was, but if you count the shear number of humans now in poverty compared to when the original concencus took place then that number may or may not be be several times larger. |
|
| |
I highly doubt it is less than half of the original number so strictly on a suffering scale... the public probably came closer than the stats show depending on how the question itself was interpreted by the participants. |
|
| |
//if you count the shear number of humans now in poverty
compared to when the original concencus took place// //that
number may or may not be be several times larger.// |
|
| |
Now combine that with my take on it. |
|
| |
According to <link>, the absolute number of people (as well as
the percentage) in extreme poverty has fallen a lot. |
|
| |
//absolute number of people (as well as the percentage) in
extreme poverty has fallen// |
|
| |
If that's true then my original point remains. |
|
| |
The difference
between 40% less than needed to live (or wherever their
definition of "extreme" poverty lies) & 10% less than needed
to live is irrelevant.. "too little" is an absolute.. fiddling
around with bollocks about how far "some of them" are past
that
line is an insulting irrelevance. |
|
| |
And subsistence is not enough, if I'm working a full week &
full
time hours I expect
something for myself rather than just enough to keep
myself fed, clothed, housed & provide suitable transport
sufficient to maintain my ability work, just to keep others
profits rolling in.. in fact I'd say that a subsistence wage (or
a
less
than subsistence wage topped up to subsistence by
benefits) is nothing more than "free range" slavery. |
|
| |
Um, I'm not sure what your stance is.
You are pissed at the current state of things and get that spin-doctors are running the show but forgetting that those positions, (and the paths to obtaining them), were in place long before anybody current got their jobs, so it is that system which needs to change but not by dragging the wealthy through the streets and you've offered no other solutions unless I missed something. |
|
| |
My thoughts on the matter are complicated. I get 'why' things are the way they are, but you have to look at it like Bucky did;
It's a really big ship to steer and we're all just trim-tabs. |
|
| |
...or like anonymous Greek-buddy said;
“Society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in.” |
|
| |
That is not the current incentive plan and young men with bags of seeds have historically been prevented from getting old enough to plant them.
So it has to start with education becoming a fundamental human right. Educated people have fewer children. Educated people make better decisions when it comes to choosing between spin-doctors and men. |
|
| |
We need us a server on the moon. |
|
| |
//you've offered no other solutions unless I missed
something// |
|
| |
OK, but you're not going to like it. |
|
| |
A minimum wage locked to the cost of living plus a %, the
determination of the cost of living removed from the
politicians hands & put in the hands of an independent
government funded NGO (cf. rates & The Valuation Office)
with the domestic economy protected by massive tariffs &
protectionist policies including immigration control (an
absolute necessity to prevent
economic collapse if you have wages fixed like that).. |
|
| |
If you don't want a de facto "free range" slave class (I don't)
then there's
no other option. |
|
| |
That's
just for starters. |
|
| |
Personally I don't give a crap how they do it.. |
|
| |
But I won't work for less than the cost of living, plus the
ancillary costs of working (transport & such), plus
something for myself & don't see why anyone else should &
starting from that position (of the minimum wage must
be at least that & nothing less) ~ I can''t see any other way
to do it. |
|
| |
Alright. Say all of that was implemented tomorrow just on your say alone. (you won the Emperor-lottery and everybody has to do what you say for a year)
It may or may not fix your local problems, (I'm not there so I'm out of that loop), but how much would all of that combined effect the total number of those who suffer through poverty world wide? I'm thinking a fraction of a percent. |
|
| |
It's a really Really big ship... too many captains... not enough stewards. |
|
| |
It's not that our population is too large. We could accomplish more than megalithic tasks very quickly with the amount of man-power currently at humanity's disposal if they could all just be kept fed, able to prosper and so therefore happy. |
|
| |
It's also not that the amount of foodstuffs currently wasted by first-world countries wouldn't cover most of what it would take to do that. |
|
| |
It's that there are no more-than-megalithic tasks requiring that many hands to make short work and so no allocation of resources to pay for the labor because there are too damn many chefs in the kitchen. Past atrocities have taught us to not let any one group attain enough power to become corrupted by it and societies on the whole are generally xenophobic so we stay fragmented on purpose. |
|
| |
OK, I've the bones of a reply but I
want to check the news before I hit the
sack
so I'll have to get back to this tomorrow. |
|
| |
What we need are multiple, completely incompatible
economies. |
|
| |
We divide up into multiple colors. People on the red
team can only buy, sell, or trade with other reds.
Meanwhile people on the green team can only do
likewise with their color group. A caste system
without the implied hierarchy, (not that one won't
eventually take shape). Colorblind people, well, not
sure what they do. |
|
| |
//colorblind people// You need wild cards in the system, [RayfordSteele], jokers, outliers, black swans, the embodiment of the uncertainty principle. Build it in, to prevent it collapsing the system, much as The Patrician kept Leonard da Quirm 'un'locked away in Ahnk-Morpork (it was an open and shut case). |
|
| |
Related note: Murphy's lawyer used the Law of Unintended Consequences to get the charges against him dropped. |
|
| |
// A minimum wage locked to the cost of living plus a %/ |
|
| |
paying workers at McDonalds more ultimately results in less
of them, and higher costs for a McDonalds meal. |
|
| |
Reducing the cost of goods is MUCH more useful ultimately
than increasing wages. |
|
| |
This discussion is certainly making its own sweet path through a diverse range of topics,
but it might be polite, to try and remain on topic - I was going to chip in with some
earlier clarifications, but the velocity of conversation has exceeded my ability to keep
up, and so fear doing so wouldn't add much in the way of bringing the topic back on track. |
|
| |
Reading this wishlist of the way we'd like the world to pay its debt to our continued
existence is of cultural interest however, and so presumably would have some value in
10,000 years or so, if only as warning to the cockroach hoards that would undoubtedly take
our place in the event of any systematic environmental shock brought about by our
collective ethnological failure. |
|
| |
It seems we are trying but nature doesn't really take plastic. Might be different in 10,000 years. |
|
| |
//cockroach hoards// hoarding cockroaches is pointless.
There are hordes of them everywhere. |
|
| |
Thankyou Max - my hoarding is demonstrably
inappropriate in this instance. |
|
| |