J
Joel VanderWerf
Robert said:
Sigh, at least the snails seem healthy.
Sigh, at least the snails seem healthy.
H
Hasan Hüseyin
[Note: parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.]
You are not alone ;-)
Me as well thought as same, after reading subject.
Cheers,
You are not alone ;-)
Me as well thought as same, after reading subject.
Cheers,
C
Christophe Mckeon
hello again,
ok, this is the last peep out of me on this quite OT thread. i will
gladly carry on the conversation privately with anybody who is
interested in doing so.
after a few days reflection, i can see how my original post was as
emotionally motivated as it was intellectually motivated, and so a few
things were not particularly well thought out.
what can i say, my entire worldview shifted drastically in a fairly
short amount of time, i was emotional, sorry.
something which some of you have pointed out is that i can probably put
my IT skills to good use in working towards a solution. this is probably
a very good idea which i may consider along with my permaculture
studies. some people seem to have concluded that i intended to save the
world single-handedly by giving up computers, that is clearly
nonsensical and is not what i meant to convey. i do think a culture
moving away from unnecessary and unsustainable technologies is a must
however.
some of you mentioned the idea that going backwards or regressing is
what i was advocating. someone even mentioned isolation in a commune
behind a plow. that is not what i am advocating, quite the opposite.
current agricultural practices are incredibly primitive. the so called
'green revolution in agriculture' in the mid 20th century essentially
just took an incredibly naive system (ecologically speaking) and poured
gallons and gallons of petroleum on top of it. something akin to trying
to improve on the recursive factorial algorithm by running it on faster
and faster machines. the principle problem with these practices is
precisely the plow and the notion that mono-cultural agriculture can be
sustainable. *many* civilizations have fallen due to this most basic of
naive assumptions. ours is up next in line.
i can recommend an excellent book on the history of these issues called
"dirt, the erosion of civilizations" by David Montgomery, a professor of
earth & space sciences at the univerity of washington.
you may also be interested in a BBC documentary that explores the food
crisis which petrocolapse is threatening great britain (and everybody
else) with. it goes into permaculture in the last 1/3 of the film.
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=farm+for+the+future&emb=0&aq=f#
some people mentioned the dubious notion of 'the singularity'. at this
point in time, in contrast to for example, the dire warnings of the
worlds climatologists which are science fact, the highly speculative
notion of 'the singularity' is science fiction verging on religion. i
think that that is something to keep squarely in mind. but even if it
were not fanciful wishful thinking, the energy required for that kind of
phase transition simply will not be available. just about everything
including growth economies are about to start shrinking. finally, the
question of whether it is even desirable needs to be asked, when we
already have 3.9 billion (see below) year old 'technologies' which quite
readily sustain life when not abused.
here is a video by somebody i believe has a firm grasp on the
relationship between populations, economies, technological progress,
etc. and their underlying reliance on energy and resources. he touches
on theories like "the singularity" at one point.
the biggest problem with the techno-fixer mentality that i have however
is that i do not believe our technologies to be all that fantastic. can
you get the brightest minds in engineering today and have them build a
system which can be sent to say, mars, and which can reproduce while
diversifying, and last billions of years while morphing to survive
various cataclysmic planetary wide shifts in climate, and impacts from
space etc.. we can hardly keep the wheels on our bloody mars rovers from
falling off, and you want me to believe that there is a technological
singularity looming? the technological singularity happened several
times over the past 3.9 billion or so years, with the emergence of
autocatalytic networks, going into early bacteria, and then eukaryotes,
etc. we have all around us 3.9 billion year old technology honed by
massively parallel incremental design (evolution). it is many many
orders of magnitude more complex and resilient than our tinker toys, it
is our life support system, and we are destroying it's capacity to
support human life. it will outlive us.
there were some comments which along the lines of, just let 'evolution'
happen, don't get in the way. it is difficult to argue with such a
position. when somebody says we must all die, while bowing down to the
alter of this so called 'evolution' which is essentially just a culture
of plunder gone rampant, and an incredible hubris vis a vis our
rudimentary technologies. i just consider that one of the many
sociopathologies of civilization, or perhaps a coping strategy of
particular individuals who are educated enough to understand the data
science is feeding us, but not knowing which way to turn for solutions,
intellectualize and abstract away the very real dread which most sane
human beings feel when felt with the prospect of annihilation. human
beings lived for hundreds of thousands of years before the culture of
plunder took over and now threatens all of our lives.
here is the video which affected me most, just because it shows just how
easy it can be working with nature using intelligent ecological design
to get what we want, e.g. health, a clean green biodiverse environment,
good fresh food, etc. instead of working against her as we have been for
about 10,000 years now:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7404455615181917912&ei=wnDnSZfSCaryqAOwg9HvBg&q=permaculture
so there it is, i'll now shut up and let you get back to rubying.
_c
ok, this is the last peep out of me on this quite OT thread. i will
gladly carry on the conversation privately with anybody who is
interested in doing so.
after a few days reflection, i can see how my original post was as
emotionally motivated as it was intellectually motivated, and so a few
things were not particularly well thought out.
what can i say, my entire worldview shifted drastically in a fairly
short amount of time, i was emotional, sorry.
something which some of you have pointed out is that i can probably put
my IT skills to good use in working towards a solution. this is probably
a very good idea which i may consider along with my permaculture
studies. some people seem to have concluded that i intended to save the
world single-handedly by giving up computers, that is clearly
nonsensical and is not what i meant to convey. i do think a culture
moving away from unnecessary and unsustainable technologies is a must
however.
some of you mentioned the idea that going backwards or regressing is
what i was advocating. someone even mentioned isolation in a commune
behind a plow. that is not what i am advocating, quite the opposite.
current agricultural practices are incredibly primitive. the so called
'green revolution in agriculture' in the mid 20th century essentially
just took an incredibly naive system (ecologically speaking) and poured
gallons and gallons of petroleum on top of it. something akin to trying
to improve on the recursive factorial algorithm by running it on faster
and faster machines. the principle problem with these practices is
precisely the plow and the notion that mono-cultural agriculture can be
sustainable. *many* civilizations have fallen due to this most basic of
naive assumptions. ours is up next in line.
i can recommend an excellent book on the history of these issues called
"dirt, the erosion of civilizations" by David Montgomery, a professor of
earth & space sciences at the univerity of washington.
you may also be interested in a BBC documentary that explores the food
crisis which petrocolapse is threatening great britain (and everybody
else) with. it goes into permaculture in the last 1/3 of the film.
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=farm+for+the+future&emb=0&aq=f#
some people mentioned the dubious notion of 'the singularity'. at this
point in time, in contrast to for example, the dire warnings of the
worlds climatologists which are science fact, the highly speculative
notion of 'the singularity' is science fiction verging on religion. i
think that that is something to keep squarely in mind. but even if it
were not fanciful wishful thinking, the energy required for that kind of
phase transition simply will not be available. just about everything
including growth economies are about to start shrinking. finally, the
question of whether it is even desirable needs to be asked, when we
already have 3.9 billion (see below) year old 'technologies' which quite
readily sustain life when not abused.
here is a video by somebody i believe has a firm grasp on the
relationship between populations, economies, technological progress,
etc. and their underlying reliance on energy and resources. he touches
on theories like "the singularity" at one point.
the biggest problem with the techno-fixer mentality that i have however
is that i do not believe our technologies to be all that fantastic. can
you get the brightest minds in engineering today and have them build a
system which can be sent to say, mars, and which can reproduce while
diversifying, and last billions of years while morphing to survive
various cataclysmic planetary wide shifts in climate, and impacts from
space etc.. we can hardly keep the wheels on our bloody mars rovers from
falling off, and you want me to believe that there is a technological
singularity looming? the technological singularity happened several
times over the past 3.9 billion or so years, with the emergence of
autocatalytic networks, going into early bacteria, and then eukaryotes,
etc. we have all around us 3.9 billion year old technology honed by
massively parallel incremental design (evolution). it is many many
orders of magnitude more complex and resilient than our tinker toys, it
is our life support system, and we are destroying it's capacity to
support human life. it will outlive us.
there were some comments which along the lines of, just let 'evolution'
happen, don't get in the way. it is difficult to argue with such a
position. when somebody says we must all die, while bowing down to the
alter of this so called 'evolution' which is essentially just a culture
of plunder gone rampant, and an incredible hubris vis a vis our
rudimentary technologies. i just consider that one of the many
sociopathologies of civilization, or perhaps a coping strategy of
particular individuals who are educated enough to understand the data
science is feeding us, but not knowing which way to turn for solutions,
intellectualize and abstract away the very real dread which most sane
human beings feel when felt with the prospect of annihilation. human
beings lived for hundreds of thousands of years before the culture of
plunder took over and now threatens all of our lives.
here is the video which affected me most, just because it shows just how
easy it can be working with nature using intelligent ecological design
to get what we want, e.g. health, a clean green biodiverse environment,
good fresh food, etc. instead of working against her as we have been for
about 10,000 years now:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7404455615181917912&ei=wnDnSZfSCaryqAOwg9HvBg&q=permaculture
so there it is, i'll now shut up and let you get back to rubying.
_c
T
Tom Cloyd
Free market idealism...ah, yes. In the USA, and, as a consequence, inEleanor said:Alas all too true. If advocates of green concerns really want to
minimise the environmental impact of humanity their best bet would be
to campaign for the complete liberation of global markets.
Indeed
Ellie
Eleanor McHugh
Games With Brains
http://slides.games-with-brains.net
world in general, we are presently enjoying the rewards of market left
entirely TOO free. Wild pigs with the social morality of your average
two year old took over, uprooted a lot of the garden and many of the
fruit trees, and as a result many of us are more than a bit worried
about how we're going to feed ourselves in the coming months.
I'm sad, Eleanor, since this is the first time anything you've posted
has evidenced anything but keen intelligence. Ever study
economics...with an emphasis on data, rather than mere theory? I suggest
the investment of some time in that endeavor. Free market idealism is a
lovely thing, but the real world is considerably more complex than such
a simplistic representation as that. I'm puzzled that you missed this.
I would have thought that your superb knowledge of both software design
concepts and the messiness of the working out of those concepts in the
real world might have given you a large hint about all this.
Longing for the sea gets no boats built at all. Grounding that longing
in cooperative effort, governed by a measured degree of altruism, just
might.
"In a free market economy, technology will serve whatever is needed,
when it's needed."
Not if the technology needed requires massive investment with hope of
rapid profit. For that sort of thing, history tends to show government
gets the job far quicker and better. The free market didn't defeat the
Nazis, or invent nuclear technology, and a great deal of the launch of
modern cybernetics was also government sponsored.
Time to come out of orbit and get to work. Fairy tales are for children.
t.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tom Cloyd, MS MA, LMHC - Private practice Psychotherapist
Bellingham, Washington, U.S.A: (360) 920-1226
<< (e-mail address removed) >> (email)
<< TomCloyd.com >> (website)
<< sleightmind.wordpress.com >> (mental health weblog)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
T
Tom Cloyd
Make that -
"Not if the technology needed requires massive investment with LITTLE OR
NO hope of rapid profit.
t.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tom Cloyd, MS MA, LMHC - Private practice Psychotherapist
Bellingham, Washington, U.S.A: (360) 920-1226
<< (e-mail address removed) >> (email)
<< TomCloyd.com >> (website)
<< sleightmind.wordpress.com >> (mental health weblog)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Not if the technology needed requires massive investment with LITTLE OR
NO hope of rapid profit.
t.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tom Cloyd, MS MA, LMHC - Private practice Psychotherapist
Bellingham, Washington, U.S.A: (360) 920-1226
<< (e-mail address removed) >> (email)
<< TomCloyd.com >> (website)
<< sleightmind.wordpress.com >> (mental health weblog)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
T
Todd Benson
I've been avoiding this thread, but what the heck...
A so-called "free" market economy, I'm sorry to say, is not the utopia
you think it would be. You can worship Mr. Smith all you want, but
people simply aren't pawns in a giant chess game. What I mean is that
Adam (and other likewise economists) makes some severe logical leaps;
some terribly skewed assumptions about human behavior.
You will continue to have, and indeed _must_ have, some semblance of
intervention at the ruling party level. It's simply a check against
what you think would be a balance.
Todd
A so-called "free" market economy, I'm sorry to say, is not the utopia
you think it would be. You can worship Mr. Smith all you want, but
people simply aren't pawns in a giant chess game. What I mean is that
Adam (and other likewise economists) makes some severe logical leaps;
some terribly skewed assumptions about human behavior.
You will continue to have, and indeed _must_ have, some semblance of
intervention at the ruling party level. It's simply a check against
what you think would be a balance.
Todd
X
Xeno Campanoli
Free market wants cheap transaction cost, which is partly information cost.
Data processing cat help with that, but won't magically. It is one of the
ironies of our era that the fastest way to get a free market and keep it is to
eliminate large corporations, establish rules requiring 100% worker ownership,
establish Georgist land and tax reforms, and generally set everyone at close to
the same level of income, all things best done by government. Without people
working at similar levels of scale and in a fair system, you just won't get
there anyway, so just opt for real democratic socialism, which at least
mitigates the greatest excesses of totalitarianism of any stripe and allows some
market workings which really help. All the crap from the Reaganites was just
bate and switch, and they have conned us to the tune of tens of trillians of
dollars with it.
I think Ruby will help cheapen information, but the real problem isn't with
ruby, but with the rules of ownership and the legacy of power owned from spoils
rather than merit activity. Money is a poor reflection of merit, especially
nowadays, and the biggest resource wasters are not those raising taxes, but
those who cut them so they could waste more resources personally. The greenest
among us are the homeless people, so it makes most sense that others should be
massively taxed to subsidize the homeless people to do some real savings.
All that is beyond the intent of this group and I think the discussion should
therefore be taken elsewhere. I hope ruby wins and merit wins and that I can
now go back to using this list as a ruby technical resource.
Sincerely, Xeno
Data processing cat help with that, but won't magically. It is one of the
ironies of our era that the fastest way to get a free market and keep it is to
eliminate large corporations, establish rules requiring 100% worker ownership,
establish Georgist land and tax reforms, and generally set everyone at close to
the same level of income, all things best done by government. Without people
working at similar levels of scale and in a fair system, you just won't get
there anyway, so just opt for real democratic socialism, which at least
mitigates the greatest excesses of totalitarianism of any stripe and allows some
market workings which really help. All the crap from the Reaganites was just
bate and switch, and they have conned us to the tune of tens of trillians of
dollars with it.
I think Ruby will help cheapen information, but the real problem isn't with
ruby, but with the rules of ownership and the legacy of power owned from spoils
rather than merit activity. Money is a poor reflection of merit, especially
nowadays, and the biggest resource wasters are not those raising taxes, but
those who cut them so they could waste more resources personally. The greenest
among us are the homeless people, so it makes most sense that others should be
massively taxed to subsidize the homeless people to do some real savings.
All that is beyond the intent of this group and I think the discussion should
therefore be taken elsewhere. I hope ruby wins and merit wins and that I can
now go back to using this list as a ruby technical resource.
Sincerely, Xeno
P
Phlip
Christophe said:
It's happened to me too - I just wake up in the morning and discover I'm
Lisa Simpson...
(Obligatory winkie:
R
Robert Dober
I honestly do not care about the market model. It is irrelevant(1),
what is relevant are the values a society respects or fails to
respect.
In pure capitalism, ecological behavior is possible, if ecological
values are introduced. In pure communism likewise.
Of course there are other values which would need much more respect,
like freedom and human rights, but I am not going further on this as
this would be OT even for this thread.
Cheers
Robert
(1) and resistance is futile, BTW I like the conclusion of ST Voyager
particularly because it shows the vulnerability of a centralized
system and that holds for Star fleet HQ as well as for the Queen of
Borg. Permaculture can definitely help here
what is relevant are the values a society respects or fails to
respect.
In pure capitalism, ecological behavior is possible, if ecological
values are introduced. In pure communism likewise.
Of course there are other values which would need much more respect,
like freedom and human rights, but I am not going further on this as
this would be OT even for this thread.
Cheers
Robert
(1) and resistance is futile, BTW I like the conclusion of ST Voyager
particularly because it shows the vulnerability of a centralized
system and that holds for Star fleet HQ as well as for the Queen of
Borg. Permaculture can definitely help here
L
List Sp
Chad said:
So what country does have this "free market" you describe ?
Let me guess: none.
If we remove the (cause of all evils, the bad bad) government, what
would change ?
Let me guess: nothing, the multinationals would still rule the world.
..but lets suppose we start all over again, lets suppose we have all the
people with the same resources and the same opportunities, then we apply
"free market" what happens ?
people get together and start their small companies, some do better than
others, the ones that did better buy another company, and then
another....and ooooppss, what we have: monopolistic control over
resources ? corrupt corporate lobbyists ? nahhhhhh the forces of "free
market" suddenly appear and destroy the bad guys and wipe corruption
from the face of the earth.
...that souns familiar, yes I think I saw that somewhere....oh yes, I
now remember, I was eating popcorn...
P
Phlip
.but lets suppose we start all over again, lets suppose we have all the
A "free market" is a math curiosity that works in the presense of a
perfectly level playing field, incorruptable rule of law, pure democracy,
and business standards all perfectly tuned to foster competion. My HMO will
never sentence me to death because I can easily switch HMOs and force them
to compete. By magic.
In the real world, there is no law that can withstand the corruption of
power, hence we need to over-regulate the rich, and sometime vote against
them. The "peasant uprising" can either be built into the system, or it can
be bloody.
The countries in the world that got this balance right - specifically the
Pacific Rim countries whose silicon I am now typing on - they all have in
common just a little governmental extra control over their financial
systems.
Go figure...
A "free market" is a math curiosity that works in the presense of a
perfectly level playing field, incorruptable rule of law, pure democracy,
and business standards all perfectly tuned to foster competion. My HMO will
never sentence me to death because I can easily switch HMOs and force them
to compete. By magic.
In the real world, there is no law that can withstand the corruption of
power, hence we need to over-regulate the rich, and sometime vote against
them. The "peasant uprising" can either be built into the system, or it can
be bloody.
The countries in the world that got this balance right - specifically the
Pacific Rim countries whose silicon I am now typing on - they all have in
common just a little governmental extra control over their financial
systems.
Go figure...
C
Christophe Mckeon
i believe that is thinking along the right lines.
but maybe our models are hopelessly outdated:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_Economics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_ecology
A
Alexey Petrushin
No need to save the Planet. It should function well in the next 30-100
years.
The Singularity will come earlier (~30). It will solve all problems.
We will get abilities to got new bodies, new mind, and new souls.
There will be no need to stay in the body of monkey anymore, we'll get
ability to exist in any form, humanoid, virtual-mind, distributed
systems (like skynet), pure energy, ... There will be no limits.
So, come back, don't be afraid to love Ruby. The sooner Singularity
comes the better, for all(also for Earth).
years.
The Singularity will come earlier (~30). It will solve all problems.
We will get abilities to got new bodies, new mind, and new souls.
There will be no need to stay in the body of monkey anymore, we'll get
ability to exist in any form, humanoid, virtual-mind, distributed
systems (like skynet), pure energy, ... There will be no limits.
So, come back, don't be afraid to love Ruby.
The sooner Singularitycomes the better, for all(also for Earth).
J
john maclean
2009/4/18 Alexey Petrushin said:No need to save the Planet. It should function well in the next 30-100
years.
The Singularity will come earlier (~30). It will solve all problems.
We will get abilities to got new bodies, new mind, and new souls.
There will be no need to stay in the body of monkey anymore, we'll get
ability to exist in any form, humanoid, virtual-mind, distributed
systems (like skynet), pure energy, ... There will be no limits.
So, come back, don't be afraid to love Ruby.
comes the better, for all(also for Earth).
And besides, who are we kidding thinking that the planet needs us?
It's been around for a long time before we were here and can do
without us fine**x, where x is a Bignum.
--
John Maclean
07739 171 531
MSc (DIC)
Timezone: GMT
P
Phlip
Alexey said:
Thirty years? Note that only 40 years ago, futurists predicted we'd have
flying cars, moonbases, and brain transplants by now...
The S is a staple of science fiction. Confer Vernor Vinge, for example. Its
projection is not grounded in facts.
The plot of scientific knowledge over time is a simple ramp up, but the plot
of the corresponding technology follows an S-curve:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmoid_function
On the lower left end of that curve, humans are too busy hunting and
scavenging to bother with advanced research.
We are above the middle these days, where each scientific advance rapidly
yields a technology boost.
The closer we get to the upper right, the less valuable each scientific
advance becomes. Eventually, a billion dollars of research will not yield a
million dollars of profit from new gizmos.
We have already seen this effect in many of our advances. Nuclear power
works great on paper, but if the only thing we can do with the spent fuel is
dump it on Iraq or Somalia then those guys might actually achieve the moral
high ground in the court of global public opinion and shut us down.
Similarly, string theory is an awesome idea, but I have heard that nobody
can think of an experiment that would prove, adjust, or bust it. The
experiments themselves create the new technology, but as our microscopes and
telescopes get smaller and bigger, they will only show us wonders that lead
to no practical applications.
"This one a long time have I watched. Never his mind on where he was. Hmm?
What he was doing. Hmph. Adventure. Heh! Excitement. Heh! A Jedi craves not
these things." --Yoda
P
Phlip
And besides, who are we kidding thinking that the planet needs us?
Who will move it to a safe orbit as the Sun goes off the Main Sequence?
Mother Nature works in mysterious ways. Including sometimes via Epic Fail.
Who will move it to a safe orbit as the Sun goes off the Main Sequence?
Mother Nature works in mysterious ways. Including sometimes via Epic Fail.
P
Philip Rhoades
People,
We won't have to wait for the Sun to do us in - we are causing our own
mass extinction event (the first time one has been caused by an
individual species as opposed to some other, external, physical
phenomena) . .
Phil.
--
Philip Rhoades
GPO Box 3411
Sydney NSW 2001
Australia
E-mail: (e-mail address removed)
We won't have to wait for the Sun to do us in - we are causing our own
mass extinction event (the first time one has been caused by an
individual species as opposed to some other, external, physical
phenomena) . .
Phil.
--
Philip Rhoades
GPO Box 3411
Sydney NSW 2001
Australia
E-mail: (e-mail address removed)
A
Aaron Turner
Well look on the bright side, when we're all extinct, then this thread
will be dead too. How about everyone who wants to continue this
particular discussion find a better place for it?
Here's a few suggestions:
http://www.environmentalpages.org/
http://discuss.greenoptions.com/
http://www.theenvironmentsite.org/forum/
I'd imaging any of those forums would love to have this conversation-
unlike the majority of people here on ruby-talk who would like to talk
programming.
--
Aaron Turner
http://synfin.net/
http://tcpreplay.synfin.net/ - Pcap editing and replay tools for Unix & Windows
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary
Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
-- Benjamin Franklin
R
Robert Dober
Hmm I was very recently thinking that we are really worried about the
wrong thing. 10**9 years is a long time to be hit by a big enough
meteorite to really worry about. That is where research and argggg
weapon like devices are needed to prevent aehems, ....
Oh she does and extinction might happen despite all our efforts, even
"tomorrow" and without our doings. I however think we should still
deploy our efforts, don't you?
And now for something completely different, the more I follow the
links Christophe provides the less I feel that this thread is OT.
Those models seem maybe utopic to you? Well I would have liked to have
your prognosis about the Open Source movement when it started to
evolve, would you have thaught it might come so far and lead to
strange languages like err "Ruby"
.Cheers
Robert
R