LiveinHope Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 Probably because it doesn't. If it did, we wouldn't be here, because such positive feedbacks would have killed our ancestors millions of years ago. Over geologiocal time, a hell of a lot of our relatives appear to have been wiped out in just that way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowflux Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 (without wanting to kick off another, parallel AGW discussion) As I recall, back then, Clarke offered up cosmic dust as a mechanism. In the Day the Earth Caught Fire I recall it being nuclear testing/ changes in the Earth's tilt. I quite like Scotland and it will be a shame when it gets ground into fine powder, again. So if human emissions delay the onset of the next ice age for a few thousand years that's a result afaic. And that's not me attempting, on the sly, to discount the possibility of things going too far the other way. but then that can lead to the question of if we could 'dial in' and sustain an optimum mean global temperature what would that be? About the same as now? A bit warmer? A tad cooler? I guess we'd go with roughly what we have at present, given that our infrastructure has developed to suit that climate. The climate has been quite stable over the last 10,000 years or so, and this his surely contributed towards the rise of modern civilisation. In particular, sea levels have remained relatively constant, which has allowed the growth of large coastal settlements. The main problems associated with rapid warming are increasing sea level, which will mean the abandonment of coastal settlements and loss of fertile farmland, and changing weather patterns, which will inevitably cause problems with agriculture. That's not to say there won't be some benefits (e.g. probable increase in productivity in Siberia and Canada), but these are likely to be far outweighed by losses elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 I think left wing scientists are often just economically naive They don't realize that exploiting existing resources helps develop wealth and by implication fosters technology and capital that will solve these problems of scarcity in the future I find right wing economists to be extremely naive. Indeed, I'd point out that economics as a subject has real problems with the fostering of technology. After all, much of our modern technology was effectively incubated by state funding (generally military funding) before the capitalists came along to mass-market/consumerise it. Focusing on only one bit of that process does not help. Classic example: GPS. There is absolutely no way that it would have worked as a commercial proposition when first thought up.. yet we can hardly deny the economic benefits now. Indeed, the reaction of market forces to, for instance, high petrol prices is instructive - we have far more efficient petrol engines, modern diesels, etc - we've used market forces to optimize efficiency in classic manner. BUT we are still 'doing the same thing'. So water will be more expensive in real terms in the future? But by using the economically beneficiant options we currently have we will be much richer anyway so be able to afford it Unless, of course, the combined effect of global warming and resource depletion make 'us' poorer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 Classic example: GPS. There is absolutely no way that it would have worked as a commercial proposition when first thought up.. yet we can hardly deny the economic benefits now. A2Z and other map printers may disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 A2Z and other map printers may disagree. I'm pretty sure that I'm meant to be the lefty luddite here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 I'm pretty sure that I'm meant to be the lefty luddite here... Its not about being lefty or luddy. Its about the broken window fallacy....and for GPS, the things used to cost 4-500 quid, whereas an A2Z or other map book would cost £1 to £20, depending on what you wanted. So for the benefit of GPS, and it undoubtedly has many advantages over a map, people were happy to pay hundreds of pounds....these hundreds of pounds were therefore not spent in other areas of the economy, and it is doubtful very many individual GPS units actually saved the firms/owners anything like the cost over time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scunnered Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 Its not about being lefty or luddy. Its about the broken window fallacy....and for GPS, the things used to cost 4-500 quid, whereas an A2Z or other map book would cost £1 to £20, depending on what you wanted. So for the benefit of GPS, and it undoubtedly has many advantages over a map, people were happy to pay hundreds of pounds....these hundreds of pounds were therefore not spent in other areas of the economy, and it is doubtful very many individual GPS units actually saved the firms/owners anything like the cost over time. Do you know how people like A-Z make their maps these days? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuggets Mahoney Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 I'm pretty sure that I'm meant to be the lefty luddite here... Bagsies the paranoid libertarian luddite spot if it's still free. You already indicated that you're mindful of this but those huge, not for profit, state-funded development projects are usually associated in some way with large military complexes. If the price of not spending trillions on ridiculously expensive, occasionally lethal, junk is the occasional gem like GPS never having existed I'd be more than a little tempted. And who knows what other gems have not been born on account of resources being hoovered up and spanked on 'defence'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 Do you know how people like A-Z make their maps these days? Google it, copy and paste? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 Bagsies the paranoid libertarian luddite spot if it's still free. You already indicated that you're mindful of this but those huge, not for profit, state-funded development projects are usually associated in some way with large military complexes. If the price of not spending trillions on ridiculously expensive, occasionally lethal, junk is the occasional gem like GPS never having existed I'd be more than a little tempted. And who knows what other gems have not been born on account of resources being hoovered up and spanked on 'defence'? Well.. you could - arguably - go all the way back to the consistent demand for Iron nails from the British navy being a factor in starting the large scale production of Iron in the UK. The real point is this: - From basic science, it's often possible to see potential solutions to problems, or applications of science that would be great. GPS is an example, and a fairly clean one. - And it's also possible to say 'If that imagined-but-possible technology existed, it would be possible to profit from it'. I.e. we'd be able to make Satnavs, smartphones, etc - getting lost would become a thing of the past. HOWEVER, if you can't get from the first step to the last whilst making a profit, then the private sector won't do it. Defence is one of the ways - extremely inefficient as you point out - that we make the jump. Not the only way (Formula 1 for cars springs to mind ). Government-driven R&D can make the jump as well (NASA). Now - if you are of the mind that only the private sector can 'do' anything, and that anything else that happens is by definition wasteful, you are basically consigning a huge category of technology and infrastructure projects to the dustbin, as well as removing the ability to act on problems like global warming or energy shortages in advance. I don't see why that should be so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 Well.. you could - arguably - go all the way back to the consistent demand for Iron nails from the British navy being a factor in starting the large scale production of Iron in the UK. The real point is this: - From basic science, it's often possible to see potential solutions to problems, or applications of science that would be great. GPS is an example, and a fairly clean one. - And it's also possible to say 'If that imagined-but-possible technology existed, it would be possible to profit from it'. I.e. we'd be able to make Satnavs, smartphones, etc - getting lost would become a thing of the past. HOWEVER, if you can't get from the first step to the last whilst making a profit, then the private sector won't do it. Defence is one of the ways - extremely inefficient as you point out - that we make the jump. Not the only way (Formula 1 for cars springs to mind ). Government-driven R&D can make the jump as well (NASA). Now - if you are of the mind that only the private sector can 'do' anything, and that anything else that happens is by definition wasteful, you are basically consigning a huge category of technology and infrastructure projects to the dustbin, as well as removing the ability to act on problems like global warming or energy shortages in advance. I don't see why that should be so. We had very good navigation aids before GPS. GPS relies on satellites...indeed, it could probably have been made to happen with just the TV satellites with their fixed positions. and maybe, there was no need for military version at all. It is just that TV satellites were not all round the Globe. In my Plane, we had Decca Radar Nav system long before GPS was commercially available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 I'd try and grab the Harold Wilson position if I were you. EDIT: One of their most intriguing and highly ridiculed ideas from that time was to pay people more as it would lead to automation and rising productivity. I think that is an idea that has come of time. Witness how productivity has collapsed since 2008 partly because labour is cheap, can be devoted to low value added work and can be easily be wasted under the accountant's pen instead of investing in capital.It is leading to a very poor economy overall but attractive to low skilled immigrants subsidised by tax credits. It's interesting, and also very disturbing, that the whole notion of Progress Through Science (And Engineering) is almost routinely ridiculed nowadays. Generally by people who live an extremely comfortable life as a direct result of the same.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dinker Posted February 11, 2014 Author Share Posted February 11, 2014 It's interesting, and also very disturbing, that the whole notion of Progress Through Science (And Engineering) is almost routinely ridiculed nowadays. Generally by people who live an extremely comfortable life as a direct result of the same.. It`s Post-Modernism innit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frozen_out Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 Now - if you are of the mind that only the private sector can 'do' anything, and that anything else that happens is by definition wasteful, you are basically consigning a huge category of technology and infrastructure projects to the dustbin, as well as removing the ability to act on problems like global warming or energy shortages in advance. I don't see why that should be so. Not neccesarily. You could argue that increasing taxation and the parasitic effect of large government has reduced the private sector's ability to deal with the problems you mention. The likes of IBM, Bell, DuPont and ICI used to have massive 'blue skies' programs. They probably don't do so much now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 Not neccesarily. You could argue that increasing taxation and the parasitic effect of large government has reduced the private sector's ability to deal with the problems you mention. The likes of IBM, Bell, DuPont and ICI used to have massive 'blue skies' programs. They probably don't do so much now. Ironically, this is a result of two things - the 'Shareholder value' school of management, which focuses only on the next quarter, and lower taxes on profits, which means that there is more incentive to extract cash from a business rather than reinvest in growth. Both of these are the enemies of long term planning and blue-sky projects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuggets Mahoney Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 It's interesting, and also very disturbing, that the whole notion of Progress Through Science (And Engineering) is almost routinely ridiculed nowadays. Generally by people who live an extremely comfortable life as a direct result of the same.. Humanity has actually tried a materialistic, superstition-free state where science and engineering was placed on a pedestal and where most economic activity, including colossal not for profit research projects, was managed by government. By most accounts, it didn't work out. So, presumably, something was missing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 Humanity has actually tried a materialistic, superstition-free state where science and engineering was placed on a pedestal and where most economic activity, including colossal not for profit research projects, was managed by government. By most accounts, it didn't work out. So, presumably, something was missing. Yawn.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goat Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 Ironically, this is a result of two things - the 'Shareholder value' school of management, which focuses only on the next quarter, and lower taxes on profits, which means that there is more incentive to extract cash from a business rather than reinvest in growth. Both of these are the enemies of long term planning and blue-sky projects. Maximising shareholder value is entirely consistent with long term planning and reinvestment in the business, if there is a problem it is that public company and investment fund managers tend to be judged on short term performance measures and thus are not incentivised to maximise shareholder value at all. If you've any ideas how to solve this problem I'd love to hear them. Lower taxes are surely an incentive to invest since they increase the return on the investment, I'm not sure why you think they are an incentive to remove cash from a business (presumably to then invest in speculative assets). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 Maximising shareholder value is entirely consistent with long term planning and reinvestment in the business, if there is a problem it is that public company and investment fund managers tend to be judged on short term performance measures and thus are not incentivised to maximise shareholder value at all. If you've any ideas how to solve this problem I'd love to hear them. I was pointing out the problem.. other than something trivial like 'Shoot all MBAs' it's a tricky one to solve. Lower taxes are surely an incentive to invest since they increase the return on the investment, I'm not sure why you think they are an incentive to remove cash from a business (presumably to then invest in speculative assets). Because if - as an extreme example - dividends were taxes at 90% - as a shareholder I'd want as much of the profits as possible reinvested to grow the business, to make the gains through capital growth; this would mean more blue-sky funding. Drop that tax to 10% and it's less risky to take the cash and run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bossybabe Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 Edit: The Nine Billion Names of God was the creepiest though. I couldn't sleep after reading that as a lad. It still creeps me out. But the stars are still there behind the clouds... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 It still creeps me out. But the stars are still there behind the clouds... Just saw one go out.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuggets Mahoney Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 "The freshwater boom is over. Our rivers are starting to run dry" http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/oct/10/comment.water?CMP=twt_gu In fairness to George, according to a couple of recent articles I've just read, he's not recommending that we increase carbon emissions to deal with the flooding but talks about tree planting and doing away with state subsidies which encourage irresponsible land management, mundane stuff like that... e.g. Drowning in Money / Dredging rivers won't stop floods. It will make them worse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corevalue Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 UK Environment Minister Warned: Climate Change Threatens More Dry Winters From 2012. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrPin Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 UK Environment Minister Warned: Climate Change Threatens More Dry Winters From 2012. When does he predict this will happen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrPin Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 In fairness to George, according to a couple of recent articles I've just read, he's not recommending that we increase carbon emissions to deal with the flooding but talks about tree planting and doing away with state subsidies which encourage irresponsible land management, mundane stuff like that... e.g. Drowning in Money / Dredging rivers won't stop floods. It will make them worse I approve of trees! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.