RealClimate logo

Forced responses: Aug 2019

Filed under: — group @ 31 July 2019

Bi-monthly thread on climate solutions and responses.

363 Responses to “Forced responses: Aug 2019”

  1. 351
    Al Bundy says:

    Nemesis: So, we will not see any new system, shrug, but we will see the fall of capitalism, I guarantee that, hehe.

    AB: OK, but the easiest way to accomplish that is through swift depopulation. If the 1% become the only percent then They’re golden.There was a James Bond movie with something relatively close to that scenario. I won’t be any more of a spoiler so you’ll have to watch (or have watched) Moonraker to grok this.

    “Jaws is a fictional character in the James Bond films The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker, played in both films by Richard Kiel. Jaws is one of the most popular James Bond henchmen and a recurring character in the James Bond video games. He is a highly skilled killer relying on his brute strength and steel teeth to quickly dispatch his victims.” Wiki

  2. 352
    patrick027 says:

    re 312 David B. Benson “As I stated, the Mark Jacobson paper is in PNAS, open access. So is the rebuttal.” – okay, but I didn’t catch which Jacobson paper. I suppose I could figure it out though…

    re 313 zebra and my original… one idea would be to offer climatological pricing, a sort of in-between between fixed-rate and real-time; i.e. what the price would be for a given time of day, time of year for an average year (moving average with climate change as well as economic change, but maybe updated every two years or… whatever; modeling of consumer responses to price signals, including how many sign up for different pricing systems and demand management systems, etc., would be needed to forecast costs, as this is not real-time pricing).

  3. 353
    Al Bundy says:

    Folks have discussed how first-worldliness (education, health care, etc) suppresses birth rate, but I’ve never seen an analysis that includes AI and robots. Given that the number of folks needed to perform most tasks will be exceeded by the number of folks who consider said task “play”, a universal basic income will have to be enacted and pay will lose much of its relevance and draw. When every job is, “I’d do this even if I didn’t get paid, why would a business pay much? This lack of possible employment will be exacerbated by the fact that healthcare alone will exceed a typical employee’s value (unless employment is seriously limited).

    So, some folks will get paid to play. Others will seek fulfillment through procreation. “Jimmy is off to college and the house is empty. Let’s have a second two-child family”. Remember, laundry and cleaning are gone and cooking and gardening/lawn care are reduced to a hobby.

    Perhaps Spawn-shaming will grow to be the next big thing to guilt people with.

  4. 354
    Killian says:

    Re #353 Al Bundy said Folks have discussed how first-worldliness (education, health care, etc) suppresses birth rate, but I’ve never seen an analysis that includes AI and robots

    Bored people will have more sex, not less. Bored angry/unhappy/unstable people will force others in to sexual behavior more often.

    More pregnancies.

    With free health care: Not much change to whatever the trajectory would have been.

    Without free health care: More babies.

    My opinion, zero data.

    And why in the name of god are we even discussing this if we have yet to figure out how to survive long enough with an intact civilization to even *have* a robot/AI (dys)utopia (for which the resources do not exist)?

  5. 355
    Nemesis says:

    @Al Bundy, #351

    ” Nemesis: So, we will not see any new system, shrug, but we will see the fall of capitalism, I guarantee that, hehe.

    AB: OK, but the easiest way to accomplish that is through swift depopulation. If the 1% become the only percent then They’re golden…”

    I’d rather say, the best way to achieve this is through just going on with BAU a little more and they are going on with BAU indeed ;) BAU brings sheer capitalist profit to the profiteers, that’s their only goal and it will be their doom quickly. Capitalism supports and rewards greed and ignorance like no other system as you can make mountains of funny money through exploitation and eco destruction. Just one example among millions of examples:

    “Eco-crime in EU booming, report says”

    This will not stop until capitalism is stone dead.

  6. 356
    Mr. Know It All says:

    353 – Al Bundy
    “Folks have discussed how first-worldliness (education, health care, etc) suppresses birth rate, but I’ve never seen an analysis that includes AI and robots.”

    AI and robots will soon be able to take care of excess population:


  7. 357
    nigelj says:

    Al Bundy @353 talks about (paraphrasing) robots and AI replacing jobs, leading to spare time so more sex and having of children, and the need for a UBI.

    It seems very unlikely people are going to all have personal robots, all 7 billion or more of us, because the drain on planetary resources would be pretty huge and will probably push prices up, and people might also start see how wasteful this use of resources is and modify their lifestyles to some extent anyway. People like to save labour from dreadful jobs like vacuuming, but I think there might be limits as to how far they want to go. I quite like getting some exercise in the garden.

    Personal robots would probably also be limited to rich people. Robot vacuum cleaners, even these tiny little devices cost a fortune with little sign of dropping in price.

    However it depends on timing. In the longer run, if population falls fast enough to get ahead of resource problems, more widespread use of personal robots might eventuate. We just don’t know what will happen.

    Personally I doubt any of these various scenarios would have too much effect on sex. Unemployed people sometimes lie around having sex all day when young, but it gets to be hard work, and tedious and energy draining when you get older. People will probably play golf and follow personal interests. Given the idea of a UBI is a very fixed sum of money having more children would be expensive.

    However I agree with AB that AI will replace jobs and we need to think about a UBI. This is a logical proposition, but trials have had mixed results:

    However I think the criticism in the second link it a bit confused. A UBI isn’t primarily intended to reduce inequality, and is not a good mechanism to do this. A UBI doesn’t funnel money at billionaires , because it gives them what they already get, just that they get it as of right. In fact assuming a progressive tax system a UBI would be mildly redistributive. It also doesn’t matter how much of gdp a UBI uses, because its just a guarantee that everyone gets a share of that gdp and is a bit of a money go around. Likewise it doesn’t matter if taxes have to be increased, because its just a money go around.

    All a UBI does is give people a basic income “as of right” thus avoiding the complexities of entitlement / social welfare systems. It does neither more or less. Inequality can only be solved by wealth taxes or progressive income taxes, or some more fundamental change in how society decides to own and distribute wealth.

    The more important thing is does a UBI discourage work? Preliminary results in Finland’s study suggest it doesn’t, but this is based on a fairly minimal income of 560 euros a month targeting people on an unemployment benefit. This would not be sufficient for invalids or parents with several children, and a higher payment might discourage work (bearing in mind everybody gets it not just invalids etc). If instead you start giving people top up payments for special circumstances, this undermines the basic idea of the scheme.

    This might all be a fatal flaw in the scheme, with emphasis on “might be”.

    One things for sure, AI and robotics will replace at least some jobs leaving people unemployed or in very low paying services jobs. SOMETHING will have to be done for them, it’s just human decency.

  8. 358
    Al Bundy says:

    nigelj: Personal robots would probably also be limited to rich people.

    AB: A personal robot with all the bells and whistles might weigh 500 pounds, including attachments. A junk car weighs lots more. As if material constraints will limit this particular transition. Unlike windmills we’re talking a reduction in material input for a give output. All those devices and tools you currently have will be replaced by attachments.

    The whole paradigm of capitalism is becoming less relevant. Once you have a 3D printer you only need a data file to have your robot (the printer) build your heart’s desire (including new parts for your robot). Data files, not money, are the key to the future.

    When it comes to technology “Limited to rich people” just means that professionals will have to wait a couple years (unless they’re so drawn that they splurge). “Limited to professionals” just means that the middle class will have to wait a couple of years (unless they’re so drawn to that big-screen TV that they splurge).

    We’ll have robots mining landfills pretty soon. Material shortages might be a thing for windmills (dunno), but the rise of the robots is just too convenient for humanity to pass up. Would you rather have a personal robot or a personal car in an age when driverless Uber and Lyft exist?

  9. 359
  10. 360
    nigelj says:

    Al Bundy @358, I get this image of Edward Scissorhands in robot form.

    Yes robots would delete the need for as many power tools but not so many people have those these days anyway. However I do agree with your basic point about versatility. I suggested some time ago that although smartphones are high tech, and use some less common metals, their efficiency and ability to replace so many gadgets goes in their favour. This is what certain people don’t always appreciate about advanced tech, it drives efficiencies.

    But the real point is personal robots use a lot of the planets resources, just as automobiles do, and its the ‘cumulative’ effect that could be a concern. While I’m not as pessimistic as Killian about the extent of resources, he is right there are still limits. Personal robots are not as vital to our lives as the basics such as an automobile or a windmill, uber or otherwise. But I suppose when has sanity ever prevailed?

  11. 361
    Killian says:

    Moved from closed thread:

    87 Killian says:
    26 Sep 2019 at 4:26 AM

    AB, a few thoughts on moderation:

    1. First recognize boards go through sequences of calm, chaos, assholery by the core group. That latter is very much a constant. So, does any given period of civility/non-civility matter?

    (Ask the core questions first.)

    2. The worst thing for any board (on-line forum) is when the moderator and a core group become “institutionalized,” i.e., they dominate the board and are hostile to outliers/outside-the-boxers (relative to the core group.)

    3. This board was an example of #2 very, very much over the last three years, and still is. It doesn’t seem so bc I, Thomas, and other outliers are posting very little. When I do, I am largely ignored – even when I simply post links to important science. Literally, over the las three years, my science-only posts get virtually no comments while people complaining about my “style” or non-scientific thinking – according to them – get threads that can go on for months.

    That, AB, is when you know a board is calcified.

    4. 1 – 3 are not complaints, they are observations setting up my suggestions:

    A. Boards go through phases. So be it.
    B. Because of personal differences, moderators must be of an eclectic mindset, or a very narrow mindset, and nothing in between. Choose to be institutionalized (very, very easy, and very 1994) or open (very, very difficult and more democratic.)
    C. If A, just get your core group (aka the Peanut Gallery in this case) to be moderators and drive any interesting dissention away. A calm, focused, less-than-creative board will result,
    D. If B, then select an eclectic group to be moderators. A more quarrelsome, more creative board will result.
    E. With good moderators, either C or D can succeed. What is good moderation?
    E.1. Have clear rules as to what gets moderated.
    E.2. Have moderators collaborate on any moderation that is due to style, language, rudeness, etc. Clear, direct insults should always be moderated. Denial, too.
    E.3. Decide what gets snipped, what gets deleted, what gets Boreholed.
    E.4. Do not set moderators up as gods that cannot be questioned. Totalitarianism breeds distrust.

    F. Modration slows a board down and screws with continuity. If you have a group with time on their hands, then set up a site where you copy and past problematic posts, the moderators suggestion, and discuss. Ideally, a 1-day max acceptance time is the result.
    F.1. It could be set up as a passive system: Here’s the original, here’s my moderation.
    F.2. Any comments, suggestions or objections must be made within X hours.

    G. if you don’t do F, then you have to deal with moderators having to moderate themselves as a group, which can work, but is slow and messy.

    All that said, this would be the “Least Change for Maximum Effect” (permaculture principle) change I would make: Make the Borehole a moderated space for utter nonsense, OT posts and denialist posts. Let those that want to waste their time do it there.

  12. 362
    Thomas says:

    When it comes to addressing, taking actions, about agw/cc nothing much has changed in all these years. We’re all mostly still stuck in the starting gates, scientists and lay people alike.

    Whatever you do, do not scare the people …. the mega myth of all agw/denier myths. Denying the truths founds in Psychological Sciences and refusing to apply them in one’s work, is still living in denial. Isn’t it?

    “You’re screwed no matter what you do.” Jordan Peterson

    from 04:11
    they’re trying to stumble forward
    towards their ideal as poorly defined as
    it might be but then they’re afraid
    right they’re afraid about what they
    might encounter and that stops them
    because fear does stop people it freezes
    you like a prey animal and so people
    move ahead but then they get afraid and
    they start moving ahead and so and
    that’s not so good because negative
    emotion is a really powerful motivator
    so we’re more motivated by negative
    emotion than positive emotion
    quantitatively speaking quantitative
    quantitatively speaking you can measure
    that and that’s I think because we can
    only be so happy but we can really be
    suffering and yet you know so we have to
    pay more attention to the negative and
    that’s bad because the negative can stop
    you and then in my clinical practice you
    know I often talk to people who are
    trying to make a difficult life decision
    and and they are weighing out the costs
    and the benefits of making the life
    decision you know and one of the things
    I always talk to them about is wait a
    second that’s an incomplete analysis you
    have to weigh out the benefits and the
    costs of doing this and you have to
    weigh out the costs and benefits of not
    doing that not doing it and that’s not
    the same as the zero that you assume
    that you’re starting with right because
    to not make a decision it also has a
    cost and sometimes the cost of not
    making a decision is far worse than the
    cost of making a decision even if the
    decision is risky and so one of the
    things you can derive from that and this
    is very useful I think is that this is
    also I think why it’s so useful to
    contemplate your mortality so to speak
    as you’re screwed no matter what you do
    you know and that actually frees you is
    that you you have Path A that has
    catastrophes and you have path B that
    has catastrophes and you don’t get to
    have the no catastrophe path but you get
    to pick which one and that’s really
    something because if you know that
    there’s terrible risk associated with
    everything that you do and don’t do then
    because you’re not you know (and this is
    all within the arc metaphor) I’m still
    making the case that despite the fact
    that your life is essentially
    catastrophic you can you can make a
    covenant with the highest ideal and that
    will take you through it the best way
    possible and I’m still making that case
    so so then you think okay well I’m
    trying to make this decision I’m gonna
    go try to do something difficult and
    isn’t that terrifying and then you think
    yeah but wait a minute what’s really
    terrifying is not doing it and then you
    think about the cost of not doing it

    And when you know you’re right, when it’s based on the scientific evidence of an overwhelming number of expert scientists, you never pretend that you might be wrong nor remain silent just to “keep the peace” and avoid ridicule by those who do not know.

    Well some do. They’re generally called failures.

  13. 363
    Thomas says:

    4:30 “… because negative emotion is a really powerful motivator.
    so we’re more motivated by negative emotion than positive emotion
    quantitatively speaking you can measure that ….”

    So – it’s SCIENCE, it’s a FACT.

    Better not to ignore Scientific facts, right?