The Official Conspiracy Theory Thread

2013-04-17 03:54:48

#51

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|7060|Canberra, AUS

Uzique The Lesser wrote:
energy is one thing. we have a finite amount of matter. we're on a ball of rock. we make things we derive from that rock. it's going to run out. the earth's surface area is not increasing (or at least, not at a rate even worth mentioning w/r/t this discussion).

right. but with unlimited energy you open up an exponentially greater amount of matter in comparison to earth and you lift the ceiling we can reach by several orders of magnitude. for the purposes of this discussion, that limit may as well not exist, as we simply don't have the ability to make any sort of judgement about what that sort of world will look like beyond wild speculation.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2013-04-17 03:55:32

#52

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|7060|Canberra, AUS

Dilbert_X wrote:
Spark wrote:
yes you will hit a different limit, but it is so far beyond our comprehension that for the purposes of this discussion it may as well not exist.
No it isn't, we're going to run out of things like tungsten and other heavy metals in our lifetimes.

Yes if we had unlimited energy we could mine asteroids and fire our used plutonium into the sun, but we don't and we're not going to so it doesn't matter.

well... duh? this entire discussion is based on the premise of unlimited energy...

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2013-04-17 03:58:11

#53

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,820|6492|eXtreme to the maX

So what would happen if we had unlimited energy? I say we'd hit another limit even quicker, its human behaviour.

Fuck Israel

2013-04-17 03:59:21

#54

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|7060|Canberra, AUS

ask a sci-fi author. the rules of the game change completely in a post-scarcity world, which is effectively what you have.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2013-04-17 04:00:34

#55

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,820|6492|eXtreme to the maX

I'm asking you.

Fuck Israel

2013-04-17 04:06:31

#56

Uzique The Lesser: Banned; +382|4640

Spark wrote:
Uzique The Lesser wrote:
energy is one thing. we have a finite amount of matter. we're on a ball of rock. we make things we derive from that rock. it's going to run out. the earth's surface area is not increasing (or at least, not at a rate even worth mentioning w/r/t this discussion).
right. but with unlimited energy you open up an exponentially greater amount of matter in comparison to earth and you lift the ceiling we can reach by several orders of magnitude. for the purposes of this discussion, that limit may as well not exist, as we simply don't have the ability to make any sort of judgement about what that sort of world will look like beyond wild speculation.

it's not going to happen, anyway. the entire world system we have now is predicated on finitude, limit, and scarcity. capitalism wouldn't exist if things were free or in absolute abundance. the exchange principle would collapse if everything was a horn-of-plenty. the 'free energy' scenario is basically on par with the 'heaven on earth' scenario.

2013-04-17 04:08:08

#57

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|7060|Canberra, AUS

what would happen? i have no idea.

what might happen? a technological gold-rush on a scale that is near incomprehensible in scale as people realise that with unlimited energy, you can basically just invent machines and technology to turn raw materials into processed materials. synthetic chemistry (and synethic anything, really) becomes a massive, sprawling industry and the pace of medical research increases exponentially. with unlimited energy, everyone has access to the benefits of unlimited energy, and the major fundamental constraint becomes raw materials - which drives a space exploration boom which is, again, unheard of in human history. and we reach something largely approaching conventional notions of utopia.

or maybe not. maybe the space race goes so quickly that it becomes unregulated... and some disgruntled space freighter captains decide to crash their ships into the earth with the sort of force usually reserved for extinction-event-level meteorite impacts, wiping out all advanced life on earth.

do you see how speculative and absurd this is becoming?

Last edited by Spark (2013-04-17 04:09:08)

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2013-04-17 04:08:52

#58

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|7060|Canberra, AUS

Uzique The Lesser wrote:
Spark wrote:
Uzique The Lesser wrote:
energy is one thing. we have a finite amount of matter. we're on a ball of rock. we make things we derive from that rock. it's going to run out. the earth's surface area is not increasing (or at least, not at a rate even worth mentioning w/r/t this discussion).
right. but with unlimited energy you open up an exponentially greater amount of matter in comparison to earth and you lift the ceiling we can reach by several orders of magnitude. for the purposes of this discussion, that limit may as well not exist, as we simply don't have the ability to make any sort of judgement about what that sort of world will look like beyond wild speculation.
it's not going to happen, anyway. the entire world system we have now is predicated on finitude, limit, and scarcity. capitalism wouldn't exist if things were free or in absolute abundance. the exchange principle would collapse if everything was a horn-of-plenty. the 'free energy' scenario is basically on par with the 'heaven on earth' scenario.

that's been my argument in this entire 'debate'.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2013-04-17 04:10:02

#59

Uzique The Lesser: Banned; +382|4640

so let's just all admit, for now, that shit is running out and thus indians need to learn that they're not allowed the same nice things as us.

O K

Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-04-17 04:12:27)

2013-04-17 04:12:51

#60

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|7060|Canberra, AUS

or, to get back to my original original point, "overpopulation" has always and will always be a flaky argument against encouraging economic development. there might be others, but that is not one of them.

Last edited by Spark (2013-04-17 04:13:13)

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2013-04-17 04:19:43

#61

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,820|6492|eXtreme to the maX

Spark wrote:
or, to get back to my original original point, "overpopulation" has always and will always be a flaky argument against encouraging economic development. there might be others, but that is not one of them.

That wasn't your argument, it was this:

my point is that your theory about an uncontrollable population explosion in the case of limitless energy - which would make everyone much, much richer, in time - is basically complete crap, by your very own logic.

You're assuming unlimited energy = everyone richer - which is wrong.

People would still be in exactly the same competition for limited resources - land and food for two things.

Economic development and improving education are not the same thing as giving everyone free energy by any stretch.

Fuck Israel

2013-04-17 04:22:39

#62

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|7060|Canberra, AUS

why not? there is an excellent historical correlation between access to cheap energy and economic growth. it's a huge enabler.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2013-04-17 04:27:55

#63

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,820|6492|eXtreme to the maX

And as I've pointed out - economic growth and access to free or cheap energy hasn't meant populations have fallen or the world magically becomes less consumptive or more efficient in use of limited resources - usually the opposite.

Fuck Israel

2013-04-17 04:52:28

#64

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|7060|Canberra, AUS

Dilbert_X wrote:
And as I've pointed out - economic growth and access to free or cheap energy hasn't meant populations have fallen or the world magically becomes less consumptive or more efficient in use of limited resources - usually the opposite.

and no one's argued that either of those would happen. all i've said is that economic growth - which unlimited energy automatically implies - will not lead to a population explosion.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2013-04-17 04:58:02

#65

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6539|what

https://www.facebook.com/video/embed?vi … 0918888111

wow

2013-04-17 05:23:04

#66

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,820|6492|eXtreme to the maX

Spark wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
And as I've pointed out - economic growth and access to free or cheap energy hasn't meant populations have fallen or the world magically becomes less consumptive or more efficient in use of limited resources - usually the opposite.
and no one's argued that either of those would happen. all i've said is that economic growth - which unlimited energy automatically implies - will not lead to a population explosion.

The population is already exploding, I don't see how making energy, and hence food, free would not make it worse.
You haven't made a case for a population stabilisation or reduction either.

Fuck Israel

2013-04-17 05:27:12

#67

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5744|London, England

Did you read The Population Bomb or something? Food is really the least of our issues.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2013-04-17 07:50:39

#68

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|7060|Canberra, AUS

Dilbert_X wrote:
Spark wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
And as I've pointed out - economic growth and access to free or cheap energy hasn't meant populations have fallen or the world magically becomes less consumptive or more efficient in use of limited resources - usually the opposite.
and no one's argued that either of those would happen. all i've said is that economic growth - which unlimited energy automatically implies - will not lead to a population explosion.
The population is already exploding, I don't see how making energy, and hence food, free would not make it worse.
You haven't made a case for a population stabilisation or reduction either.

yes, it is exploding. in africa. most oecd countries have very slow or negative population growth - draw your own conclusions.

Last edited by Spark (2013-04-17 07:50:59)

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2013-04-17 07:52:11

#69

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|7102

Spark wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
Spark wrote:

and no one's argued that either of those would happen. all i've said is that economic growth - which unlimited energy automatically implies - will not lead to a population explosion.
The population is already exploding, I don't see how making energy, and hence food, free would not make it worse.
You haven't made a case for a population stabilisation or reduction either.
yes, it is exploding. in africa. most oecd countries have very slow or negative population growth - draw your own conclusions.

trollbret strikes again.

https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png

2013-04-17 08:01:00

#70

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5744|London, England

Spark wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
Spark wrote:

and no one's argued that either of those would happen. all i've said is that economic growth - which unlimited energy automatically implies - will not lead to a population explosion.
The population is already exploding, I don't see how making energy, and hence food, free would not make it worse.
You haven't made a case for a population stabilisation or reduction either.
yes, it is exploding. in africa. most oecd countries have very slow or negative population growth - draw your own conclusions.

Does the correlation between wealth, education and low birth rates hold up over time, or is it a modern thing? I believe it has more to do with access to birth control than anything else. Sixty years ago we entered an economic boom and the population spiked with it. Fifty years ago birth control became less taboo and the population rate plummeted.

I think the whole 'we're smarter, so we have less kids' argument is bunk. Being better educated doesn't override the primal urge to fuck everything in sight, it just has less consequences from an offspring perspective now.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2013-04-17 08:06:37

#71

Uzique The Lesser: Banned; +382|4640

Jay wrote:
Spark wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:

The population is already exploding, I don't see how making energy, and hence food, free would not make it worse.
You haven't made a case for a population stabilisation or reduction either.
yes, it is exploding. in africa. most oecd countries have very slow or negative population growth - draw your own conclusions.
Does the correlation between wealth, education and low birth rates hold up over time, or is it a modern thing? I believe it has more to do with access to birth control than anything else. Sixty years ago we entered an economic boom and the population spiked with it. Fifty years ago birth control became less taboo and the population rate plummeted.

I think the whole 'we're smarter, so we have less kids' argument is bunk. Being better educated doesn't override the primal urge to fuck everything in sight, it just has less consequences from an offspring perspective now.

i think the correlation between education/lifestyle and having less kids isn't to do with the knowledge or information gained, per se, it's more to do with the fact that higher levels of advanced education and better lifestyles leads directly to more involved, busy careers and engagements. people have less kids because a) they have less time and b) to raise them in their middle-class, well-educated manner costs more money/is of more financial consequence.

2013-04-17 12:04:23

#72

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5971

Educated people tend to use birth control too. So the whole "our primal urges get the better of us" is bunk since we have figured out a way to shut down a woman's ability to reproduce cheaply with a daily pill.

2013-04-17 12:10:47

#73

globefish23: sophisticated slacker; +334|6710|Graz, Austria

Dilbert_X wrote:
the population would rise until we reach the food production limit based on farmable land and sea - then the world would be a truly shitty place because we'd be up to our necks in it.

But with free energy you could produce Soylent Green in factories all day.

2013-04-17 12:16:42

#74

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5744|London, England

Macbeth wrote:
Educated people tend to use birth control too. So the whole "our primal urges get the better of us" is bunk since we have figured out a way to shut down a woman's ability to reproduce cheaply with a daily pill.

Right, but that's part of my point. What happened before birth control was widely available? People married younger either due to accidental pregnancies, or because a pregnancy was likely from having sex. Humans in the developed world didn't suddenly become smarter and wealthier and decide to stop performing the act that leads to children, they simply, and suddenly, had access to a wide range of contraceptives that allowed them to control pregnancy. It's got nothing to do with education and wealth and everything to do with access to birth control. Education and wealth are a byproduct of not being saddled with children until you feel you are ready, not the other way around.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2013-04-17 12:57:53

#75

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5971

I think birth control use has a connection with education and wealth. Poor people are the ones who are still having kids in this country. Poor people tend to not be well educated. Birth control pills aren't free you know.

BF2S Forums The Official Conspiracy Theory Thread

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Spark wrote:

Spark wrote:

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

Spark wrote:

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

Spark wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Spark wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Spark wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Spark wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Spark wrote:

Spark wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Spark wrote:

Jay wrote:

Spark wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Board footer