|
Post by Retrograde on May 8, 2008 17:58:59 GMT -4
How much of that money went to U.S. corporations? Doesn't a lot of it end up helping the U.S. economy, or am I off base about that? Well, let's see. They could spend it on supplies, personnel, etc. to fight a war in Iraq. Or they could spend it on supplies, personnel, etc. to do something different than fight a war in Iraq. Or they could leave it in the hands of taxpayers, who could spend it on spicy salsa and blue-ray DVD players. The job creation effects are similar, so the decision on what to spend it on should be based on the direct benefits. Does a war in Iraq produce any useful result, or does some other use of the money (including leaving it in the hands of the taxpayers) produce some better result? If it is supposed to be a job works program, I'd prefer one that produces something useful to one that does not produce something useful. I see the argument all the time (including here) that spending on space exploration is good for the economy because it creates jobs. Well, spending money carving giant ice sculptures every winter that melt as soon as spring comes would also create jobs. If I decide who gets funded and who doesn't, and I ask someone, what are the benefits of your project, and the answer is "It creates jobs," they're getting cut. If they can think of some actual benefits, they might get funded.
|
|
|
Post by Retrograde on May 8, 2008 17:49:36 GMT -4
It's just that LO has already locked a thread on the same topic.... Ah, got it. So, Jason likes to play with fire?
|
|
|
Post by Retrograde on May 8, 2008 17:48:43 GMT -4
I disagree. Americans are a generous and generally fair-minded people, and wouldn't take everything without providing what they feel is fair compensation, or aid where it is needed. That attitude prevents us from consuming everything. And I disagree with your disagreement I think the evidence is clear, not just from the US, but worldwide - when the price is low, consumption is high. The reason people in the US (and in fact people everywhere) do not consume incredible quantities of resources is because it is costly for them to do so. When it is not costly, people consume a lot. For example, fuel subsidies in Iran - the country with the third largest oil supplies in the world will soon become a net importer of energy, if it has not already. Energy is heavily subsidized, so it is cheap, and people use it very wastefully. In the US, gasoline consumption is lower than last year. Is this because the price is higher, or is it because Americans came to some collective ethical decision that they ought to use less oil, so there will be more oil available for the other people in the world? Americans generous and fair-minded? Like most people, some of the time, in some circumstances. Which is the problem, because no one seems to be able to show me evidence that humans are causing global warming or that human activity can somehow mitigate it. I can come up with dozens of examples that seem to prove that the climate is changing, but nothing that proves the causal link to human behavior. OK, so do we agree then that the proof or lack thereof for human-caused global warming is in the evidence (or absence) thereof, not in whether Paul Ehrlich's predictions of food shortages came true or not? Which raises the question of "why even make such a statement at all?" If you know that you are only making a statement about current conditions that will all change by the time of your prediction then why bother? I can think of all kinds of reasons to make such statements. I used to make statements like some of these myself in a job I had some years back. Consumption of a commodity is occurring at such and such a rate, there is this much of it known to exist, how long the supply will last is a simple division problem. We used to do things like this all the time, trying to forecast prices and production levels, changes in demand induced by price, etc. I have made statements along the lines of "At the current rate of consumption, the world's known supply of X will be exhausted in 25 years. However, new supplies have been discovered at the average rate of Z per year during the last decade, and price pressure in the coming years will result in intensified development as previously uneconomical sources begin to be tapped. Furthermore, at a price of K, it will be more economical for industry L to substitute commodity M in their production process, moderating the demand for commodity X." I wonder if any of those mutated into, "Khrushchev's Other Shoe predicts a global collapse of civilization in 25 years when the world supply of commodity X runs out." Unfortunately I don't have the original quotes here to see them in context, so I can't verify whether the statements were made with this understanding that other supplies might be found or not. My guess would be that there are some of each. Paul Ehrlich, at least, was pretty clear that he was forecasting an actual shortage, not a hypothetical shortage based on hypothetical (and unrealistic) assumptions that neither supply nor demand would change in response to changes in prices. I don't know if the other specific quotes you have provided fall into the same category, but if they don't, I imagine you wouldn't have difficulty finding others that do. But in any event, these quotes are cherry-picked - is it reasonable to find the goofiest proclamations made on a certain front, and argue that all other statements from that front must be equally goofy? I'm sure I can find some pretty goofy quotes by people who share your position on global warming if I look hard enough. That does not discredit people who take your position. I'll keep that in mind
|
|
|
Post by Retrograde on May 8, 2008 7:18:29 GMT -4
Is it to do with the comparative density and speed of rotation? The force of gravity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance to the center of mass (for a spherical object, we can treat all mass as if it were located at the center - for other objects, that won't be the case). So if the radius of the moon were 1/4 of the radius of the earth, then the force of gravity on the moon would be 16 times stronger, if it had the same mass as the earth. However, the moon doesn't have the same mass as the earth. If it had the same density as the earth (and it doesn't, but the difference isn't huge), then the mass would be proportional to the cube of the radius. For example, double the size of the moon (keeping its density the same), and its mass would be multiplied by eight. So there are two effects. One causes the force of gravity to increase proportionately to the cube of the radius; the other causes the force to decrease proportionately to the square of the radius. The combined effect is (holding density fixed), the force of gravity on the surface of a planet or moon is proportional to its radius. Earth is approximately four times the size of the moon, so its gravity ought to be four times stronger on the surface; the difference is larger because the earth is denser than the moon.
|
|
|
Post by Retrograde on May 7, 2008 22:23:31 GMT -4
Gordon Taylor, in his 1970 book The Doomsday Book said that Americans were using 50 percent of the world's resources and "by 2000 they will, if permitted, be using all of them." Well, the last part of that one is pretty much true. If permitted, they would. Why should I pay any more attention to today's environmentalist doomsayers who predict similarly dire results from Global Warming? Well, you shouldn't accept them on faith or authority, any more than you should take a bunch of cherry-picked predictions that didn't turn out as evidence that all similar sounding predictions must be false. You should pay attention if they have evidence that their predictions are likely to be true. Up to you to decide what evidence you find convincing. I would reemphasize my support for echnaton's comments. Many predictions made are of the form "at the current rate of consumption, the world's known supplies of commodity X will be exhausted by year Y." Assuming they did the math right, such "predictions" are correct. The supply is hardly ever exhausted by year Y, because new supplies are discovered (and rising prices of scarce commodities encourage exploration and development of new supplies) and because consumption rates decline (also encouraged by rising prices); oftentimes, the people making such statements are clearly aware that both the supply and the demand side of the equation will change. People with somewhat less nuance may then pick up part of these statements and run with them, conveniently leaving out the assumptions. Not every example you cite falls into this category, though - Paul Ehrlich clearly believed that the shortages really would occur. Why do I have the feeling that you are going to get both of us banned by starting this thread? Now that would be quite an accomplishment. I haven't managed it yet, despite quite a bit of effort. People make crazy claims all the time about all subjects. Yes, cherry picking the most extreme statements made on a topic pretty much guarantees that they're going to be BS. The most extreme statements being made today about global warming are almost certainly BS. That doesn't, by itself, tell us that all claims about global warming are BS.
|
|
|
Post by Retrograde on May 7, 2008 19:40:05 GMT -4
A lot of scientists and politicians don't understand economics and the power of pricing and substitutions to change supply and demand. Ne'er have truer words been spoken! I suspect much of the apparent ignorance on the part of politicians is feigned, in order to pander. For example, I don't believe for one minute that the two politicians who cruised through my neighborhood a while back, campaigning for the highest office in the land, are nearly as stupid as they would appear from their professed economic policies. They're just being politicians, catering to an audience. I find it harder to rationalize the contempt for knowledge exhibited by so many scientists. For example, BAUT has a whole sub-forum devoted to ridiculing people who don't know anything about astronomy or physics, and yet you may read there on a daily basis economic theories at least as goofy as any of the junk science theories, often actively promoted by the same people who love to ridicule the junk scientists. It rather makes me think a world run by BAUT would be like the Soviet Union, but without the efficiency. Then I think of the scientists I've met IRL, they don't seem to be rabid, fire-breathing woo-woos at all. So I really hope it is just a matter of internet scientists vs. real-life scientists. But then again, the case cited here is one of real-life scientists
|
|
|
Post by Retrograde on May 2, 2008 15:43:38 GMT -4
You thought scientists and engineers were more rational than other people? Are you related to any? I was one. I know, I know... One possible argument would be that space exploration would be a much better use of government funds than many other areas they are spending them in, This argument is frequently advanced, sometimes by no less a personage than Phil Plait. Personally, if I am going to bat to get funding for some project, I'd like to have a better argument than saying something else the government is doing is an even bigger waste of money than the thing I'm proposing though again someone can argue that there are even better uses than exploration. And if they can make that argument, they should. That's how these things ought to be decided - resources should be devoted to their best possible use, not to anything that is slightly better than the worst possible use. I fear this basic principle of optimality, well known to anyone who didn't sleep through the first lecture of economics 101, is completely rejected at places like BAUT. Certainly better than spending it on a useless war. Call me old-fashioned, but I think the decision of how much to spend on space exploration and which particular projects to spend it on should be based on the costs and benefits of those projects, not on the silliness or lack thereof of other things the government or society might be doing.
|
|
|
Post by Retrograde on May 2, 2008 3:21:29 GMT -4
Well a way to start is to point out that every dollar spent on Space Exploration is spent on Earth and goes into making jobs for everyday Americans right the way across the US. Sorry, that argument doesn't work with me. Yes, it's true, but it's also irrelevant. If the money was spent on, say, housing, the salary dollars would also be going into the pockets of Americans, but the result would be infrastructure here on Earth, rather than up in space. You are, of course, correct, and I have advanced the same argument multiple times both here and at BAUT. The reaction I have gotten on those occasions is what has pretty much gotten me to quit both boards, and forever destroyed my prior belief that scientists and engineers are more rational than other people. I hope it goes better for you. The direct benefits of space exploration are, of course, how such things ought to be evaluated (and how anything ought to be evaluated), although many people do seem to take it as axiomatic that we would all be neolithic cave-dwellers without space exploration. Another argument which I like, but which mightn't go down so well with those who have a more short-term view of things - you never know what benefits society might gain (often quite directly) from space exploration. I think this one has the same issue the first argument has - you can say this about just about anything. Any project on which we choose to spend money could result in unforeseen benefits. In the competition for funding, projects that promise some vague, unforeseen benefits may not do very well against those that promise specific, well-understood benefits... Also, the exploration of other worlds has often opened up profitable opportunities back on Earth (though I can't think of one at the moment). I'd try to think of one before using this argument
|
|
|
Post by Retrograde on Apr 30, 2008 8:01:53 GMT -4
Well, I was aiming at a facetious, veiled reference to the non-debate over the evenness of zero. But you're right: the cardinality of a countably infinite set doesn't lend itself to arithmetic of halving. I know, it was a nitpick. Sorry, I couldn't help myself
|
|
|
Post by Retrograde on Apr 29, 2008 22:08:08 GMT -4
they are odd numbers...Approximately half of all integers are odd. JayUtah, I've got to take issue with this kind of measurement of the size of countably infinite sets. It is true, for every odd integer n, there are two integers, n and n+1. Does that mean that half of all integers are odd? It is also true that for every odd integer n, there are three integers - (3n+1)/2, (3n+3)/2, and (3n+5)/2. So maybe one third of all integers are odd. It is also true that for every integer n, there is an odd integer, 2n+1. So maybe the there are just as many odd integers as there are integers. Got to be careful assigning measure to infinite sets... In any event, there is someone who just got banned at BAUT, who has the same name as altair4 (Paul Leeks). There is a message saying he is banned for being a sock, along with Schutzstaffeln-SS. I think the message means they are socks of each other, but it is slightly ambiguous.
|
|
|
Post by Retrograde on Dec 4, 2005 13:27:41 GMT -4
Debunking Moon Man's claims He didn't really make many claims, mostly he just asked a lot of questions and kept everyone else talking. Or at least that is my recollection at BAUT, maybe it was different here...
|
|
|
Post by Retrograde on Jan 20, 2008 19:17:47 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by Retrograde on Jan 21, 2008 0:02:27 GMT -4
The House of Representatives must initiate an impeachment - the Senate can't do it. In my post, "congress" should be interpreted in the narrow sense, that is, house of representatives, not both houses. Democracy is the worst form of government, except every other form. Some of the people out there (including some here) have me wondering about the last part...
|
|
|
Post by Retrograde on Jan 20, 2008 23:12:35 GMT -4
I think that if George Bush declared Martial law he would be declared incompetent and removed from office by Congress. But I don't know American laws very well. As I understand it, the Congress can impeach him (as they did the last president) for "high crimes and misdemeanors," which are not defined in the constitution. Basically, if congress votes for any reason at all (simple majority) to impeach, and the senate votes to convict (2/3 majority), he stops being president. No judicial review, no appeal, no nothing. His popularity being just slightly on the low side these days, there was talk about congress removing him from office even if he did not declare martial law (charges to be something along the lines of deception related to the Iraq war), but the opposition party decided not to push for it. Perhaps they saw how well it went for the opposition party the last time it was tried... It used to be called "common sense" but these days it's a power far beyond the reach of many people you meet on the internet. I used to be a firm believer in democracy. Now, all I have to do is tell myself, democracy is a system that gives Turbonium or 911 Inside Job power over my life, and all of a sudden, it doesn't seem like such a great idea...
|
|
|
Post by Retrograde on Jan 22, 2008 11:51:44 GMT -4
Any attempt at genocide has involved de-humanizing your target. "They're not like us because of their skin color, or what they pray to, or because of who they have sex with, or because they couldn't survive on their own, so they're not actual humans. That means it's okay to kill them." I would argue that demonizing this, that, or the other group of people is what goes in all politics, whether it results in genocide or not. Any policy that people argue about helps some people and hurts others. True, there are disingenuous attempts to argue that such and such a policy helps everyone, which is never true. But most of it is about arguing that the beneficiaries of a favored policy are the good guys, and the people hurt by it are the bad guys. This policy benefits the rich, or the evil Chinese, or the corporations, or the lazy, or criminals, or special interests, whatever, so it is bad. This policy benefits the poor, <insert your own nationality here>, the "people," the hard-working, the law-abiding, the responsible, so it is good. But they are all attempts to portray the beneficiaries of the policy as either deserving or undeserving. This way, instead of having to admit that one advocates policies out of something as base as self-interest, one can stand tall and argue that one is taking the high road, doing the right thing, looking out for the good guys instead of the bad guys, and the fact that it also happens to benefit oneself, well of course that didn't influence one's viewpoint at all, how dare anyone think that... I'm much more comfortable with people who say they advocate policies out of self-interest, than people who advocate policies out of self-interest but feel they have to make up some high holy righteous story about what good people advocacy of this policy makes them...
|
|