Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My goodness, you do seem a bit overconfident in divining what I really think about this and that.
But you keep making the classic beginner's mistake, the mark of a truly rank amateur. This concerns exponential projections.
Here are some exponential extrapolations from trends long-established by 1969: (1) vehicles will attain the speed of light by 1982, (2) immortality will be achieved by 2000, and (3) a single person will control the energy equivalent of the full output of the Sun by 1981.
Moreover, both you and the authors of the paper you cited seem completely unaware of the use of the logistic rather than the exponential in technology forecasting. People interested in the study of the future learn about this their second day, so to speak. For a relentless application of the logistic to technology forecasting, see the work of C. Marchetti.
If you would like to learn something about these topics, I suggest that you begin by reading an old book titled World Futures, written by Barry Hughes and published by Johns Hopkins University Press. I have already mentioned The Art of the Long View, by Schwartz. We can discuss these matters further once you come up to speed.
-- "It is utterly implausible that a mathematical formula should make the future known to us, and those who think it can would once have beleived in witchcraft." -- Bertrand de Jouvenel, from The Art of Conjecture.
So, you have no valid arguments to offer in this discussion, just your usual blah + appeal to authority of your experience, the authority you have trouble converting to a convincing argument?
You bring up some ridiculously unrelated nonsense like using car speed in energy growth arguments (despite 400 years of essentially exponential growth of energy consumption, why not 550 years of exponential growth,answer?). You are obsessed with that article and its numerical estimates, even though exact number is irrelevant, the main thermodynamics idea stands. Whether energy consumption would grow exponentially in the next 150 years, you don't know either. So why your illogical (considering your rosy belief in clever human mind) assumption is any more valid than that of the authors' of that publication? Besides, a curious mind of yours could find quite a few scientific publications dealing with the same issues.
Last edited by RememberMee; 02-19-2014 at 09:43 AM..
So, you have no valid arguments to offer in this discussion, just your usual blah + appeal to authority of your experience, the authority you have trouble converting to a convincing argument?
You bring up some ridiculously unrelated nonsense like using car speed in energy growth arguments (despite 400 years of essentially exponential growth of energy consumption, why not 550 years of exponential growth,answer?). You are obsessed with that article and its numerical estimates, even though exact number is irrelevant, the main thermodynamics idea stands. Whether energy consumption would grow exponentially in the next 150 years, you don't know either. So why your illogical (considering your rosy belief in clever human mind) assumption is any more valid than that of the authors' of that publication? Besides, a curious mind your yours could find quite a few scientific publications dealing with the same issue.
Why not? I don't know. Why? I don't know, and neither do you. That's the point -- you cannot use high school mathematics and sophomoric deduction to predict the future with any chance of accuracy.
By the way, I am not obsessed with the paper you cited; really, I don't think that it is even worth reading. You were the one who cited the paper, and I remember that you have cited exactly the same paper in other threads concerning energy. The thermodynamics may or may not be sound (I'm sure not going to wade through it). The problem lies in the last section of the paper, the conclusions.
Regarding energy -- did you by any chance grow up in the Communist Block, where economic progress was measure in five-year plans, tons of steel, cubic yards of concrete, and kilowatt hours consumed? This approach has not been taken seriously in the first world since the end of the Second World War. Read Galbraith's Affluent Society, you might enjoy it . . .
Yeah philosophically I agree, having just gotten off the working 12 hour a day routine myself...but it was certainly not for peanuts. The reality of life is that we live in a competitive world where we compete for material goods, mates, security, fun, etc. Because I have been successful in the world view, I can take some time off the wheel but unfortunately my kids and our kids now are in that competitive world.
No, we don't live in the world, we live in USA or 230 + of other countries, and the fact that you worked 12 hours not for peanuts has a lot to do with you living in USA, and not with the fact of you being more competitive than the other 7 billions out there. If we are to compete with world, (why?), we all should compete, to the hell with countries and borders. So far, our establishment wants only lower classes to engage in the relentless competition with the world, they are quite OK with insulating themselves from competition and appropriating bulk of the loot. So far, this global competition is little bit more than an element of the quest for more wealth and power by the ones who have it all already. I don't feel the ones at the top want their wealth to drop to the global average, if that would be a threat, we would have quite different ideological paradigms pushed down our throats and 50 feet fence along Mexican border. Besides, concept of competition is not as obvious as it sounds, but it's another subject.
"Laws of Economics" = Throwback to Divine Right to Rule by those looking to justify excessive hoarding by the top 1%
"You are paid what you're worth" = Your worth based on whatever shareholders and CEOs deem whatever you're worth which is as little $$ as they can get away with while extracting maximum productivity.
"You're not entitled to anything" = Sorry you had the misfortune of being born in poverty and/or other unfortunate circumstances. Now fight, steal, cheat, prostitute, and claw your way out of it in order to justify your existence. If you fail, too bad so sad you lazy bum. Those lucky to have won the genetic lottery (progeny of the 1%), however, are entitled to their parents wealth by virtue of being the chosen ones according to the so-called laws of economics.
As for our economy.....within the next 100 years technological advances and automation will eventually render the whole concept of the masses having a "job" obsolete. We invent labor saving devices to what end? To create more meaningless make work to keep ourselves busy? Once the entire concept of labor by humans has been eliminated....what next?
How will we function during the transition from an economy based on scarcity of resources to an economy based on an abundance of resources?
NO, business decide what the job is worth. Once they decide what the pay will be for that job they will look to fill it. If you happen to apply for that job, they tell you what they will pay for that JOB. You either accept it or not. They did not create that job with you in mind.
Why not? I don't know. Why? I don't know, and neither do you. That's the point -- you cannot use high school mathematics and sophomoric deduction to predict the future with any chance of accuracy.
You just made an outlandish deduction. You implied that despite 400 years of track records, 150 years more of exponential energy consumption growth is impossible because,... because, why? You refused to answer. You are not only inconsistent in your belief, as a true believer you can't explain why you believe things you believe.
Quote:
By the way, I am not obsessed with the paper you cited; really, I don't think that it is even worth reading. You were the one who cited the paper, and I remember that you have cited exactly the same paper in other threads concerning energy. The thermodynamics may or may not be sound (I'm sure not going to wade through it). The problem lies in the last section of the paper, the conclusions.
Nope, you disregarded all my blah, concentrated all your attention on that article, attacked its exponential assumption and, what's more perplexing, you don't agree with its fairly common sense conclusions and Planetary Thermodynamics 101 you could double check using thousands of textbooks, publications, etc.
Quote:
Regarding energy -- did you by any chance grow up in the Communist Block, where economic progress was measure in five-year plans, tons of steel, cubic yards of concrete, and kilowatt hours consumed? This approach has not been taken seriously in the first world since the end of the Second World War. Read Galbraith's Affluent Society, you might enjoy it . . .
Better believe that explosion of pet crap scooping services, options trading, reality TV, professional wrestling and pet grooming is intimately linked with tons of steel, cubic yards of concrete, and kilowatt hours available for civilian uses (USSR lead asymmetrical cold war with far more superior Western block, remember about that) . It's precisely because communist block couldn't catch up with the West in those key elements of the modern economy, soviets couldn't afford pet crap scooping, casino and personal training economy, all the hands needed to be employed elsewhere. Mix in western propaganda fueling "affluent" demands among the nascent soviet consumers and you have collapse of USSR.
You just made an outlandish deduction. You implied that despite 400 years of track records, 150 years more of exponential energy consumption growth is impossible because,... because, why? You refused to answer. You are not only inconsistent in your belief, as a true believer you can't explain why you believe things you believe.
You keep getting off track. I am a true non-believer -- I don't believe for a minute that you have any special knowledge of how the future is going to unfold. That's the whole point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RememberMee
Better believe that explosion of pet crap scooping services, options trading, reality TV, professional wrestling and pet grooming is intimately linked with tons of steel, cubic yards of concrete, and kilowatt hours available for civilian uses (USSR lead asymmetrical cold war with far more superior Western block, remember about that) . It's precisely because communist block couldn't catch up with the West in those key elements of the modern economy, soviets couldn't afford pet crap scooping, casino and personal training economy, all the hands needed to be employed elsewhere. Mix in western propaganda fueling "affluent" demands among the nascent soviet consumers and you have collapse of USSR.
Right. So is that a "yes" or a "no"? Did you grow up in a Communist Block country?
EDIT -- never mind. I see from other posts that you are indeed originally from the Communist Block, Ukraine to be more precise. That explains to me your antiquated tons-and-kilowatts mentality. Have a nice life . . .
Last edited by Hamish Forbes; 02-19-2014 at 10:51 AM..
It's obvious that you've found a home in the cheerleaders section of modern day global finance. Why anyone would believe the rousing news of a reinvented China or India without doing a little research is beyond me. These nations have a long standing record of human rights violations, attempting to change the focus from the workers plight to the notion that profits equal a good life for all is proof that people choose to see what they want to see rather than accept the reality at hand. The collective of labor in these nations is coupled to a brutal system of maximization of output, why would a software engineer be worth so much less if it wasn't for the fact of a horrendous poverty driving down all compensation? You're making the argument that outsourcing to these nations is akin to a type of philanthropic caring rather than the truth that allows us to see the result of a relentless search for higher profit on the back of workers.
India is undergoing a massive social/economic change as is China and many of the lesser WTO participant nations, read their own newspapers and find the stories that tell of the new globalism from the workers perspective, you'll soon find the tales of despair from those who are experiencing the most punishing facets of global trade. Capital is fluid, it travels the earth in search of cheaper and cheaper labor, Bangladesh is one of the new plantations of hi-tech and low tech industries, why, because western capital found cheaper labor than was offered in Bangalore, were the folks in Bangalore being silly and not saving for their rainy day? Were they being lax in their ability to "compete" with the other poor workers of Bangladesh? Trumping up the immigrant who comes here and takes advantage of our wage differential is truly an eye opener, are you really saying that American workers are not productive, not capable, not competitive? Do you want to compete with a guy living in squalor? Do you want to live in a nation that is corrupt in all of it's governmental administration? Do you want to live in a brutal two tier society?
This from the Hindu News;
"The Organisation for Protection of Democratic Rights (OPDR) sought better monitoring mechanisms over factories and improved safety measures for labourers, towards avoiding serious accidents.
Referring to recent accidents in privately owned industries in Ranga Reddy district, resulting in death or disability of labourers, State general secretary of OPDR V. Hanumantha Rao charged that most factories lack registrations and licences, and do not adhere to safety regulations."
One can find the truth of things if one wants to, on the other hand if you have been indoctrinated in the groupthink of those supporting our current financial schemes against world wide labor then you will find yourself struggling against an avalanche of contrary evidence, the above story went on to describe the terrible situation in most of India's labor plantations from heavy manufacturing to the white collar tech camps. I don't think these stories were covered in the US press for obvious reasons. China is still a country that openly berates it's internal critics, restricts much of what foreigners hear or see and imprisons tons of it's citizens for political crimes.
The lack of world wide agreements on trade that I'd written about in my other post were spelled out as a reminder that while these types of social/economic agreements would result in a much more level playing field I know damn well it's never going to happen. You say we can't tell China what policies they should have but we as a people can surely prohibit our government from allowing any partnerships in trade with such nations. It isn't all about business all the time, people, regardless of where they live have a right to pursue a better life through their elected governments......
When a Chinese web developer gets hired by an American company, he/she gets a lot of career training and lives an above average life in China. Many of these jobs are admired and chased after by college students and those with an advanced degree. They are the ones buying condos in Shanghai, spending money at restaurants and bars, etc. A whole middle class are emerging in China and that is a lot of opportunities for America as well. This is no different than, say, an American company bringing in foreign web developers. Many Americans work alongside with people from other countries in our workforce. They are paid a prevailing wage.
I don't think one can use one brush to paint the entire third-world economy. It is that old sour grape about capitalism. You see it that way in the U.S. The Chinese don't. Without globalization, their GDP would have never gotten to where it is, nor would their infrastructure, income, national capabilities, and all. It is the U.S. that promoted globalization. Like it or not, Americans like cheap goods at Walmart, and complain about "stealing jobs." One can not have the cake and eat it too.
Jobs are available globally to those who want to work hard. We allow immigrants to come here because they work hard and cherish the opportunities they don't have in their home countries. It is often in immigrant communities where you find much American values that are lost among white Americans. You find rigor, work ethic, hard work, frugality, family building, education, and religion. All that is the result of globalization. Without globalization, immigrants would not get these opportunities.
You keep getting off track. I am a true non-believer -- I don't believe for a minute that you have any special knowledge of how the future is going to unfold. That's the whole point.
So, I just image you implying that "affluent" economy would override 400 years of the exponential growth in energy consumption? It appears to me that you are quite confident you know the future to make such a bold claim. And this particular belief of yours is 180 degrees opposite to your belief in "cleverness" of humans who are supposed to overcome everything, including energy shortages, because some of them are so clever.
Quote:
Right. So is that a "yes" or a "no"? Did you grow up in a Communist Block country?
EDIT -- never mind. I see from other posts that you are indeed originally from the Communist Block, Ukraine to be more precise. That explains to me your antiquated tons-and-kilowatts mentality. Have a nice life . . .
What difference my origin has to do with this subject? First, you've made a claim to greatness by virtue of your experience, then you've made a claim to greatness by virtue of your origin. What you didn't do, is backing up your oversize ego and your contradictory belief with some sort of a rational argument that holds water.
BTW, "affluent" economy, bits and pieces of which surround us, is by far more energy hogging than anything soviets could come up with. Paradoxically, antiquated tons-and-kilowatts mentality of WWII era was almost green peace like compared to the "affluent" economy of yours. Your belief in energy saving pet walking, art gallery and craft/poetry trading economy is especially amazing considering that all the data are at your fingertips. Yet you choose to believe what you believe. Yes, you are a true believer. Have a nice life too.
Jobs are available globally to those who want to work hard.
Nice circularity. Why there are 200,000 millions of the jobless Chinese then, at the very least, they are not willing to work hard? BTW, I have a few 25 cents/hours jobs to create once I find a few souls willing to work hard, so your circularity might have a grain of truth to it.
Quote:
We allow immigrants to come here because they work hard
Because they have much lower expectations as far as working conditions, hours, pay, etc. Because they are normally socially isolated, etc. and that keeps them working a lot at the bottom. Many emigrants don't work at all, btw, or work in the jobs that guarantee sickness and early death, no matter how hard they work they will remain at the bottom, as most of the first generation immigrants do. It's just that they consider American bottom to be more desirable than their native perch. Rags to riches are rather an exception for the first generation, especially the ones who hit the shore without language skills and marketable education.
Sure, there are educated emigrants filling many university level jobs in hard sciences etc., but only because those jobs suck overall, the first thing a naturalized Chinese professor does - making sure his children would do anything but science for living .
Quote:
and cherish the opportunities they don't have in their home countries.
Believe me, opportunities to work or die under a bridge exists everywhere. It's just that because of whatever historical reasons working in America offers higher wages (i.e. more stuff to buy) than equivalent work in the countries of their origin. Generally, it's much harder for an immigrant to work his way up the American ladder than it would take to achieve an equivalent meteoric rise in his home country, for the obvious reasons. So people who hit the shores don't expect too much of the upward lift, they are just glad to sell their arse for 10x of the going rate in their home country.
Quote:
It is often in immigrant communities where you find much American values that are lost among white Americans. You find rigor, work ethic, hard work, frugality, family building, education, and religion. All that is the result of globalization. Without globalization, immigrants would not get these opportunities.
You watch way too many old movies. That world of NYC slums no longer exists.
BTW, "affluent" economy, bits and pieces of which surround us, is by far more energy hogging than anything soviets could come up with. Paradoxically, antiquated tons-and-kilowatts mentality of WWII era was almost green peace like compared to the "affluent" economy of yours. Your belief in energy saving pet walking, art gallery and craft/poetry trading economy is especially amazing considering that all the data are at your fingertips. Yet you choose to believe what you believe. Yes, you are a true believer. Have a nice life too.
I have to admit that I find this amusing. Would Chernobyl be a good example of what you are talking about? "Green," Soviet style! Tons and kilowatts at its best! Sort of like the Soviet-era high-fashion models in combat boots . . .
Last edited by Hamish Forbes; 02-19-2014 at 01:42 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. 
