> On 5/10/2010 7:02 PM, Christoph Reuss wrote:
> > the difference between man-made and natural:
>
> There is no difference as man is 100% natural. Your picky tricky
> definitions are becoming tedious.
Your cop-outs are becoming tedious. Just after you had described the
difference between man-made and natural yourself (namely, the intent
to kill and the responsibility that comes with this), now you revert
to asserting that "there's no difference as man is 100% natural".
I just hope that nobody will kill you and say that phrase in court
("I'm innocent -- my genes made me do it --> nature did it!"),
in order to get away scot-free with murder...
Talking about "picky tricky definitions", one has to wonder how many
years you have made this cull/selection/die-off topic the center of your
activities, that you make "mistakes" like saying cull when you meant
the 4 horsemen when you meant natural selection when you meant die-off...
That's how it goes when pseudo-science à la Wright is put under scrutiny. ;-)
> The finite lifespan of life forms
> (that I am certain about and so stated) INCLUDES both individual AND
> species lifespans as I didn't exclude either. As far as I'm concerned,
> you are making up definitions that suit you. I am, and have always been
> UNCERTAIN about the future beyond that statement. Any coming rough times
> are probabilities as I expressly stated in the early posts on peak oil
> and semantics.
The finite lifespan is absolutely trivial, and saying "after the coming
selection" does express CERTAINTY about the coming of a selection that is
different from the "perpetual selection" (which isn't natural selection in
modern civilizations, but you ignored that too).
> > It would be faster and ethical to remove Predators from power
>
> You are the one who is certain --about the perps.
And who are the perps in your opinion? Mainly the non-rich masses --
that's why reducing them is your #1 priority to save the planet.
But what about vastly different eco-footprint sizes and power to make a
difference? If you favor "selection", wouldn't it be necessary to
"select" those with the largest eco-footprint and the most power/money to
prevent a green revolution, i.e. those billionaires?
> I probably agree
> (judgment) with you re some of them; so make a list of those you want
> eliminated!
I'm not the Unabomber... It takes a paradigm shift that removes them
from power.
> Otherwise please tell us your genius solution to the
> problematique that doesn't depend upon terminator action.
A general awareness of the Predator problematique, as opposed to
cave-men PR that blames the victims (masses).
> I've said zero about termination/liquidation...EVER. Another strawman.
You have advocated (with URL) population reduction down to 100 Million
globally to save the climate (i.e. within a couple of decades). Logic
mandates that this REQUIRES termination/liquidation -- in large numbers.
> What have you said? Seems to me: kill the perps
I've said zero about termination/liquidation...EVER. Another strawman.
I said: Remove the Preds from power.
> > Progress can also achieve "fewer people suffering in the future" -- even
> > if there are MORE people --, but without committing crimes, and faster.
>
> Really? Please tell us how.
Progress, green technology instead of Predator mismanagement/destructiveness.
For details, read the online book at http://elegant-technology.com/
> Why don't you tell us your solutions
I have been telling this all along, but you don't listen.
> instead of building a strawman on me..
You're sitting in the glasshouse...
> My position is clear: reduction of
> population to numbers which are not capable of destroying the habitat,
And the necessity of this reduction is a CERTAINTY in your opinion.
That's why you lost the bet of 09-May.
> ... and which minimize violent conflict.
This is a contradiction in terms. Forced population reduction MAXimizes
violent conflict. Green technology MINimizes violent conflict. But the
Predators want violent conflict rather than green technology (they rather
waste trillions for Cold War / War on Terror (HOAX) instead of developing
green technology).
> I'll give double the $500 at least this year but to MY charities.
You would have done this anyway (without that bet). What was the point
of that bet when you don't pay after losing it? Above, you expressed
certainty again...
> All you seem to do do is gripe.
All I want to do is to understand your reasoning. But that's difficult
because it changes as we speak...
> Am I certain life will go on? Yes, until it
> hits various lifespan constraints. That is what I said all
> along.(finite)
This is a non-statement because it's so general that it's trivial (a truism).
(The trick of horoscopes.)
The formulation "the coming cull/selection" was specific, but now you deny
that certainty.
> What have you said? Seems to me: kill the perps and
> convince the vast majority of humans to behave like you: voluntary
> simplicity. Fat chance.
I never said kill the perps (killing is the domain of Predators!), and
the clou of green tech is precisely that "voluntary simplicity" is NOT
necessary, but life can be practically as comfy as before, just the
eco-footprint is much smaller. Technological environmentalism is NOT
Luddism, although that's surely hard to imagine for the cave-men...
> Want to bet?
Want to bet on www.longbets.org that
"Unless we're drastically reducing population down to ~100 Million,
the 4 horsemen will do it -- before 2100." ?
Or are you afraid you will lose if you don't use the horoscope trick?
Chris
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword
"igve".
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
