Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Riedquat

  1. It's a possibility and I guess it might be the one that the models are showing as most likely but there isn't a binary state of ice in the world, it's varied from none at the poles to lots more. It's not as if all glaciers will suddenly melt at the same time so the question is whether or not a large enough amount of ice is right on the borderline at the moment. The other issue about tipping points is whether or not there's one where there's a positive feedback mechanism at a certain point for further heating even without additional human contribution; it's hard to imagine that if there is one around where we are that the world wouldn't have already become uninhabitable long before humans appeared.
  2. It's called "progress." How can you possibly argue with a world doing its hardest to get rid of obnoxious hardships like "self responsibility"?
  3. So you can legally own something by buying it from someone who it never belonged to in the first place? Anyone want to sell 10 Downing Street?
  4. It saves money because businesses get to use peoples' houses as rent-free office space.
  5. So many? Lots? Really? Can't say I've noticed any sign of that. Yes, it's been repeated often enough that the chances of bad reactions are not zero even though they are low. WIth many millions of people even extremely low risks will hit someone from time to time. To bang on about those examples demonstrates an inability to put numbers in to context (a problem shared by a lot of people to be fair).
  6. That appears to be the reality of the situation but it's hardly right IMO.
  7. Not really the point though, things don't need to be useful most of the time if they're very useful indeed when they are needed. That makes them useful (as long as it's not ridiculously infrequent). The implication being that the 20 year old with a broken arm is somehow more worthwhile. There is a point where I think treatment is just prolonging suffering but anything below that point is worthwhile.
  8. Was that shift the Conservatives gaining at the older end even more or Labour losing?
  9. Should point out that that's not typical garden maintenance costs though. Much of those are one-off (or at least very infrequent) expenses, some of which could be reduced if you're prepared to do the work yourself (depends on the size of the trees of course) and sound like they were at least partially down to making up for years of lack of maintenance. £1000 for a mower and some pots?! (mind you I've got far less lawn to mow and a cheap £100-odd thing does the job fine). Only time I've ever watered the lawn was when I put a bit of new seed down, although living on the edge of the Peak District I'm not usually lacking for rain. A few water butts gets the garden through dry patches. But gardening is one of those things where you can maintain something basic for not much but can also keep spending with no end if you get carried away.
  10. All rather less useful than a doctor I'd say. Humanity managed without most of those for a long, long time (except maybe brewing beer).
  11. Amen! But don't expect anything other than to get patronised (at best) for saying that. It's telling that CofVI says it's a mystery to him why someone would be bothered about it. Another one freely criticising something that he openly admits he cannot understand. I've said it before and I'll say it again - "do something unless you have a good reason not to" is an obnoxious, dismissive, and unthinking retort to someone who is unimpressed by what you think they should do. I'll stick with "don't bother unless I think there's a good reason to." So I'll happily wear a seatbelt (or take a Covid vaccine) because it seems to me that the risks justify that level of mitigation. I'll usually, but not always, wear a bike helmet (depends where I'm going), but I'd utterly condemn anyone who says "then wear it all the time you're on your bike" - or suggests that it should be law.
  12. Or you have difficulty understand peoples' motivations and desires. I've disagreed with Bruce Banner over his vaccination stance (strongly enough to piss him off quite a lot) but during that disagreement nothing he said gave me the impression that he didn't understand the relative risks. There's more to life than just saying "which is the safer choice?" "I'd just prefer to carry on and take my chance" even if the mitigation is trivial is a perfectly valid choice. "The risk's at a level I don't give a **** about so I find it silly to mitigate against it at all, no matter how trivial the mitigation" is a position that I don't find so hard to understand. The arguments were that I disagreed that that is indeed the case with Covid, but the principle is entirely reasonable.
  13. Although even £30,000 is only around the median UK salary.
  14. I suppose I can tolerate them for that long, it's not as if we're likely to be able to build enough reactors in that time to be able to afford to replace them anyway.
  15. I suppose then it boils down to just how keen you are to see the back of the wretched things.
  16. Per the above, I casually knew one person who has died from it - not my age group but was a pub regular. And I've heard of a one more (and I'm not talking about well-known people whose death is reported on the news, we're in to parents' acquaintances territory there). The point does however demonstrate again how people perceive numbers, in this case the number of deaths in a population of many, many millions; scary-sounding numbers don't necessarily demonstrate all that high a risk, just that there is such a huge number of people the low risk could happen to. Although one thing about Covid is that that risk is very unevenly distributed, and even a 1% risk is alarmingly high (and it's greater than that for some groups).
  17. If you're going to do that why not just add a couple more nuclear reactors for the hydrogen too and forget about the wind turbines?
  18. My point is that it's not an argument for further technological advances to be required. And just using the ones we do have access to is causing enough issues. Besides an inaccessible resource is irrelevant due to being inaccessible. Helium's useful stuff for example, and we have supply issues with it despite it being the second most common stuff in the universe. That there's a lot of it in Jupiter is all very interesting but not at all helpful. On the planet, no, but in a country like the UK, yes. Hence there is no need for further technological advancement, just a greater spread of it. Quite often, yes. Some seem to live between the pub and their house, others never leave the house. It's rather sad really when people cheer on the idea of a world where we're not of any actual use and fail to appreciate the idea of being a useful, functional part of their community. Probably because they're so used to banality on the one hand, and jobs having ever more crap and distance on the other. It's the immediate appeal to laziness and inability to see the subtler but more pervasive, impactful effects.
  19. That one definitely seems like a bad move in the current climate (pun intended).
  20. Some seem to have emotions. But what they don't seem to have is an ability to be concerned about more than their immediate situation (there are some limited exceptions). But they'll avoid pain because it's unpleasant for example, which I'd label as emotional (we find pain a distressing experience, not just a signal saying "this might be causing damage to your body, take avoiding action.") There are also built-in responses. We breathe without even thinking about it, not because we care to live (unless we're in a situation where it becomes a struggle). Take though for example a robot with a heat sensor and programming to avoid fire. That is a machine that on the surface might appear to care about not getting damaged, but it doesn't actually assign any value to its own existence - it's not capable of even being able to.
  21. Some animals, almost certainly. What's the point with that question anyway? If it's "well what's in it for them with life?", i.e. why do some forms of life exist without emotion, well, it just does. It makes as much sense as asking why do rivers meander when a river is incapable of experiencing anything from it, or stars shine. Just the effects of a load of matter, energy, and laws of physics.
  22. They don't need technological advances - they've already been made, they just haven't reached those countries yet. There's no free lunch though. Resources aren't infinite. Where have I claimed otherwise? But you seem to be making another mistake that I think I've already mentioned there. They're not hungry and without a roof over their head due to a lack of overall productivity and technology. More of both of those in the country at large won't help them. The problems there are social, not (overall) financial or technological, and social problems need social solutions, not monetary (beyond it costing something to do anything) or technological ones. A situation that'll massively increase the difference between haves and have nots, unless you believe human nature will completely change (and it's not really changed much since we were living in caves). In any case it shouldn't require much effort to see that that'll turn out to be a pretty crappy world to live in, if you can get beyond just seeing the immediate appeal to laziness (the same sort of immediate appeal that creates overweight lumps who never move from their sofa). Such an infantilised, humans are irrelevant, lazy world should hold no appeal at all. A bit sad when a film like Wall-E appears to show the way we're heading fairly accurately.
  23. Yep. Good or bad can only be defined relative to some criteria. And as far as "rationality" goes, well, how do you define those criteria with reference to the fundamental nature of the universe - laws of physics and mathematics? Something can only be described as good or bad if we find it a desirable or undesirable situation. Even something that threatens your life is a subjective, emotional bad thing because you want - an emotion - to live. Without emotion you'd have no reason to care whether you lived or died, or whether anyone else did. I suspect people reject this both because of the failure to recognise this, and a desire (hah!) to believe that there is some absolute, unquestionable truth that they can appeal to, to know they've done the right thing, rather than have to accept the responsibility themselves.
  24. Er, yes it does. It's (fortunately) an almost universally shared response to be utterly disgusted by such things, it appals people, and that is why we find it so abhorrent. All emotional. The mistake you're making is to think "an emotional response means a silly, trivial one" and nothing is further from the truth. By what non-emotional "objective" criteria can you determine whether something is good or bad? Good or bad are fundamentally subjective decisions, and subjective decisions are fundamentally based on emotional responses. And are the most important ones there are.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.