Surely someone has collected the digital elevation models (DEM) to find potential growth areas near areas that would be impacted by such a water rise? You know, as investment opportunities. (Or to systematically short-sell them.) New Orleans lost half their population after Katrina..
________________________________ From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> on behalf of Roger Critchlow <r...@elf.org> Sent: Monday, November 2, 2015 6:12 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: Meat Sorry, misquoted the abstract in a particularly alarming way by paraphrasing journalistic sources: 60 years of continuing destabilization of the Amundsen Basin, as is currently being observed, leads to a subsequent collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and an eventual 3m sea rise. -- rec -- On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 6:01 PM, Roger Critchlow <r...@elf.org<mailto:r...@elf.org>> wrote: speaking of crash and burn, you all caught the PNAS early release today, http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/10/28/1512482112.abstract?sid=6a257104-4e5a-45e0-ad64-03d3b03c8f43, anticipating 3m sea rise in the next 60 years, and no sign of anything to be done at this point? -- rec -- On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 5:24 PM, glen <geprope...@gmail.com<mailto:geprope...@gmail.com>> wrote: At first, I struggled to find something to argue with. But I finally found it! On 11/02/2015 02:33 PM, Steve Smith wrote: Even though I was trained as a Scientist (especially though?) I find it impossible to do enough research on any "popular" topic to even pretend to understand the issue and data well enough to make a "scientific decision". I think those who "pretend" to do so are rarely being honest. As those here who have actually *done* science, know, it is far from trivial to really track down all the data and reproduce all of the experiments, etc. to begin to "prove anything" to oneself. But one can't actually *do* science. Science is a collective thing, perhaps even an entraining thing. While there are plenty who admit that it's mostly a behavior, the requirements for repetition and prediction preclude any individual from *doing* science. At best, we can only *participate*. We can't _do_ it. We can only _be_ it. So, while I agree with your arching conclusion (that one -- you -- does not make "scientific decisions"), I disagree that it's because one hasn't done enough research. I can do so _without_ agreeing with the reasoning by which you reached your conclusion. It's because "scientific decisions" is a contradiction in terms. Decisions are intra-individual, cognitive things, whereas science is an inter-individual collective thing. This bears directly on Nick's topic, I think ... the ability to disagree with reasoning but agree with conclusions. Beyond that, I try to operate on as "fundamental" of principles as possible. Since you used the topic of diet and the eating of meat as an example, I will admit to having chosen to be a vegetarian from age 15-32 when I was essentially "boycotting" the meat *industry* which I saw as an exploitative and abusive industry. I currently follow the general guidelines of "paleo" living... entrusting my genetic heritage to define "what is best for me". With that in mind, I suspect that not only is meat important to my diet, it is probably also important for it to come to me infrequently and in somewhat binging quantities... a good eating strategy *might* be a big juicy steak or three once every couple of weeks and a LOT of green and tuberous vegetables. I *do* respond to the more complex and well researched ideas that are based in the indigenous diets of various cultures (some eat a LOT Of animal protein/fat while others eat almost none). This likely means you responded to Owen's and Nick's form follows function arguments, too, right? Or do you allow for layers of removal between form and function? To balance this, however, I believe that even if/as we crash and burn in our own greenhouse gas-heating, we will almost surely survive the consequences, albeit after a huge period of adjustment. I find this belief the most interesting. Apophenically, it seems techies tend to think this way. They're also the most likely to think we can invent our way out of various calamaties. They tend to be more tolerant of the ill-effects of any given technology (or technique). Etc. But I see a similar aspect with non-techie yet methodical people... people who can cook, for example, seem to be able to come up with good meals despite bare cabinets and fridge contents. People who can paint (or have other visual imagination) seem to see things others don't. Etc. So, from that, I infer that one's generalized ability to solve problems (generalized from one or more domains in which they are plastic/resourceful) gives them the optimism that they will find solutions, even in the face of uncertainty and a lack of reliable data. -- ? glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
