Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

The Folly of Growth - New Scientist

Discussions about the economic and financial ramifications of PEAK OIL
Post a reply

Re: The Folly of Growth - New Scientist

Unread postby Quinny » Tue 04 Nov 2008, 05:23:13

The immediately preceding sentence mentions 'economic growth'. It is not good practice to repeat every word in every sentence we are not writing a program.

I bet you're a fun conversationalist. :)
Live, Love, Learn, Leave Legacy.....oh and have a Laugh while you're doing it!
User avatar
Quinny
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3337
Joined: Thu 03 Jul 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: The Folly of Growth - New Scientist

Unread postby yesplease » Tue 04 Nov 2008, 07:30:52

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'Y')ou can start off w/ the the assumption that "If resources are infinite, then so is anything", but since "anything" includes supply, demand, production, and well, anything
Hint: check the context. Clearly, I didn't mean abstract things, I meant any product. With infinite resources, it's possible, technically, to ramp up to any level of production, but it takes time, effort and finance. No logical contradiction, except when contrived by your good self, in order to engineer an argument.
Even assuming you meant something other than what you wrote, an infinite resource in a finite world is still a logical contradiction. We have finite world, and as such, any resource we have access to has to be finite as well. There is no such thing as an infinite resource/product in a finite world. A finite world, both in terms lifespan and size, can only have finite resources. If a finite world has an infinite resource, it not finite anymore, it's infinite. Either way you cut it you're logically contradicting yourself. If you would like to say that again, what you wrote isn't what you meant, feel free. Hopefully what you write this time will not contradict itself. One out of three ain't bad. ;)
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'L')ike I said before, if you can't understand why the statements you're making are logical contradictions or illogical after possibly hundreds of posts, there isn't much I can do to help. :(
Very true, except that I understand, perfectly, what you're saying, but you're not finding logical contradictions, only your misunderstandings.
Well, you claim to understand it anyway. Even if we assume that you mean something other than what you're writing, another logical contradiction of your own construction pops up in short order. I imagine that even though what you wrote is again a logical contradiction, you yet again didn't mean to, and will attempt to explain what you meant as something different than what you wrote. Hopefully w/o using another logical contradiction, again...
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
User avatar
yesplease
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3765
Joined: Tue 03 Oct 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: The Folly of Growth - New Scientist

Unread postby yesplease » Tue 04 Nov 2008, 07:35:56

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Quinny', 'O')h they didn't did they! :)
Nope. They stated...$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')ore growth means using more resources.


If they had referred to economic growth they would've stated something like...$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')ore economic growth means using more resources.


Believe it or not, there is a difference between "growth" and "economic growth" even if you don't understand what it is. :-D
Surely you can't really be this anal, yesplease. Or can you?Lemme guess, they just like you, didn't mean what they wrote. Sure, what they wrote is techinically incorrect, but it's the spirit that counts, right? Well you're at it, why don't you try to get work in the PR department for a major fossil fuel company? Yeah, maybe what they tell you to write about global warming/pollution/etc is techinically incorrect, and there are sure to be all these anal people pointing out that it's incorrect, but you and everyone else knows that what's written isn't what was meant, so it's O.K.... :roll:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
User avatar
yesplease
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3765
Joined: Tue 03 Oct 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: The Folly of Growth - New Scientist

Unread postby yesplease » Tue 04 Nov 2008, 07:44:33

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Quinny', 'T')he immediately preceding sentence mentions 'economic growth'. It is not good practice to repeat every word in every sentence we are not writing a program.
Writing a program? They weren't even writing a decent editorial! So I wouldn't expect them to write (functional programs/scripts).

That said, they didn't have to precede every sentence w/ economic growth, just write something that isn't blatantly incorrect. For instance, how hard would it be to write "Growth tends to mean using more resources. It's correct AFAIK, and they wouldn't have to write "economic" in every sentence, even though they wouldn't have to do that in the first place.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Quinny', 'I') bet you're a fun conversationalist. :)
Thank you very mucho!:)
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
User avatar
yesplease
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3765
Joined: Tue 03 Oct 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: The Folly of Growth - New Scientist

Unread postby Quinny » Tue 04 Nov 2008, 08:44:40

NP - Did you see the Utd match last night!

YP - Which Utd match - you see there are several Utd's even some in the Isthmian League.

NP - There was only one on TV and I know you didn't go to London.

YP - Oh so you meant did you see the Utd match that was on TV.

Yes I saw that - but don't assume I didn't go to London - I might have done and got back this morning by using helicopter to airport then Lear Jet.

NP - but you haven't got a helicopter or Lear Jet.

YP - Ha - but I might have use of one!

NP OK. What about Giggsy's goal? Great wasn't it?

YP - which Giggs would that be? (and which goal)!

NP - We were talking about last nights match!

YP - Were we!

NP - Yeah course.

YP - There ws no explicit link between the two sentences so you could have been referring to........

NP - Yawn!!
Live, Love, Learn, Leave Legacy.....oh and have a Laugh while you're doing it!
User avatar
Quinny
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3337
Joined: Thu 03 Jul 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: The Folly of Growth - New Scientist

Unread postby yesplease » Tue 04 Nov 2008, 11:48:57

Failure nub! I only point out errors in statements that people claim to be logical or I think should be logical. Anyone who says something is logical when it ain't, or for example science publications making snafus, are what I respond to in the manner you portray. :razz:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
User avatar
yesplease
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3765
Joined: Tue 03 Oct 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: The Folly of Growth - New Scientist

Unread postby Quinny » Tue 04 Nov 2008, 12:19:19

We live on a planet with finite resources - that's no surprise to anyone - so why do we have an economic system in which all that matters is growth (see "Why our economy is killing the planet and what we can do about it")? More growth means using more resources.

You tried to split the above sentences which are inherently linked, and hence built your argument on false grounds.
Live, Love, Learn, Leave Legacy.....oh and have a Laugh while you're doing it!
User avatar
Quinny
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3337
Joined: Thu 03 Jul 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: The Folly of Growth - New Scientist

Unread postby yesplease » Tue 04 Nov 2008, 13:30:59

Yes... Inherently linked. After all, one comes after the other. ;) And as we all know, just because somebody wrote something, doesn't mean it means what's written, since after all, it means whatever anyone wants it to mean at any given point in time. :lol:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
User avatar
yesplease
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3765
Joined: Tue 03 Oct 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: The Folly of Growth - New Scientist

Unread postby TonyPrep » Tue 04 Nov 2008, 14:32:06

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'W')e have finite world, and as such, any resource we have access to has to be finite as well.
Well, at least we can agree on that. And that was the essential point of the New Scientist special report.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'I')f a finite world has an infinite resource, it not finite anymore, it's infinite. Either way you cut it you're logically contradicting yourself.
Not at all. I was talking hypothetically, with regard to the actions of those who have either not considered the finite nature of the world or believe its resources to be effectively infinite. I've explained this many times but you seem to have difficulty reading sentences or phrases in context.
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Top

Re: The Folly of Growth - New Scientist

Unread postby TonyPrep » Tue 04 Nov 2008, 14:37:21

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'S')ure, what they wrote is techinically incorrect, but it's the spirit that counts, right?
No. Let's take this quote from you as an example. Since you didn't specify the actual phrase that you consider incorrect, you must mean that every single phrase in the report was incorrect. But I don't think that is what you're suggesting, is it? In the context of the post, it's very clear to me that you are referring to one particular sentence. Unfortunately, you expect people to read your posts in context but you don't offer others the same courtesy. Thus we end up with pointless arguments about what you want to argue about, rather than about a post or article, as a whole.[/quote]
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Top

Re: The Folly of Growth - New Scientist

Unread postby yesplease » Tue 04 Nov 2008, 15:47:11

I don't expect anyone to read my posts in any context except for the literal meaning. If someone points out an error TonyPrep, I've got no problem w/ that. In fact, I appreciate it since it helps me refine what I'm saying/writing and keeps me from making errors/statements that aren't consistent. I also try to do the same w/ others who say they are making logical statements, which you have done. Clearly if it's someone like pstarr, I'll poke some fun at 'em, but since they really aren't saying anything anyway, I'm not going to actually point out every specific issue I see. With you otoh, since I agree with what you say most of the time, at least according to what you say you're trying to say, just not how you say it, I tned to point out everything I think is illogical.

Assuming that things will be taken in a specific context is to an extent how we've managed to come up with Carbon cap and trade programs that don't cap anything in Europe, as well as an executive branch in the U.S. that can give hand outs to their buddies, commit war crimes, and so on, while not being charged for any of it by declaring executive privilege and pardoning the occasional "front man", so to speak, who gets caught. Etc... I do not agree w/ allowing loop holes like this via loose statements, as you have seen. I'm not expecting people who blather on either end be it pstarr or that guy from the yahoo group, to do so, but people who I agree w/, and hold in pretty high regard in some subject, I tend to be a bit harsher w/. :-D
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
User avatar
yesplease
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3765
Joined: Tue 03 Oct 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: The Folly of Growth - New Scientist

Unread postby TonyPrep » Tue 04 Nov 2008, 16:13:34

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'I') don't expect anyone to read my posts in any context except for the literal meaning.
Sure you do. Otherwise, instead of "what they wrote is techinically incorrect" (ignoring the typo, for now), you would have written, "when they wrote 'More growth means using more resources', in the article of the special report, they were technically incorrect". Unless, of course, you actually meant that every single sentence of all articles in the magazine were incorrect. I'm sure you would want people to read each sentence that you write in the context of your post, otherwise your posts would be even longer, with every sentence able to stand on its own. If you think each sentence stands on its own, without the surrounding context, then you are sadly mistaken or else post nonsense.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'A')ssuming that things will be taken in a specific context is to an extent how we've managed to come up with Carbon cap and trade programs that don't cap anything in Europe
Yes, except that this is nothing like that. The sentence you objected to, and spent many posts trying to rubbish, was not a stand-alone sentence but was within the context of a paragraph, article and special report that were referring to economic growth. That you turned it into a stand-alone sentence, in order to rubbish it (and, as part of an attempt to rubbish the whole report), shows your desire to argue rather than to engage in reasonable debate.
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Top

Re: The Folly of Growth - New Scientist

Unread postby yesplease » Wed 05 Nov 2008, 05:00:02

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'I') don't expect anyone to read my posts in any context except for the literal meaning.
Sure you do.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. The only way you can know what I expect is if you can read my mind. This is the batshitcrazy I'm talking about d00d.

In one word, facepalm.

If ya don't understand this now, after lords knows how many posts, I doubt you'll understand it in the future. :(
Last edited by yesplease on Wed 05 Nov 2008, 05:45:16, edited 2 times in total.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
User avatar
yesplease
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3765
Joined: Tue 03 Oct 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: The Folly of Growth - New Scientist

Unread postby TonyPrep » Wed 05 Nov 2008, 05:16:20

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'I') don't expect anyone to read my posts in any context except for the literal meaning.
Sure you do.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. The only way you can know what I expect is if you can read my mind. This is the batshitcrazy I'm talking about d00d.

If ya don't understand this now, after lords knows how many posts, I doubt you'll understand it in the future. :(
yesplease, I've explained in detail why I'm sure you expect readers to read each sentence of your post within the context of the whole post. Why did you pick out the first sentence of mine, out of context, when I am trying to explain context?

You know, there is no crime in admitting that you got something wrong.

If you still don't understand, let me ask you a question: did you think every sentence of the New Scientist issue, which included the special report, on the Folly of Growth, was technically incorrect?

While you're onto that, can I ask what you meant by "This" in the first sentence of the post I'm replying to, and how you think I can hear you "talking" in a forum post?
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Top

Re: The Folly of Growth - New Scientist

Unread postby yesplease » Wed 05 Nov 2008, 05:35:42

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'y')esplease, I've explained in detail why I'm sure you expect readers to read each sentence of your post within the context of the whole post. Why did you pick out the first sentence of mine, out of context, when I am trying to explain context?
It doesn't matter what the context is in this case. The only way you can know what I expect, contrary to what I say or not (If I'm lying), is if you can read my mind, and no one I've ever known of can do that. It doesn't matter what validation you use for your statement, be it "it's implied in what I wrote", "your dog's breath smells like catpoop", or because "global warming is a liberal conspiracy", you or anyone else I know of cannot read someone else's mind, the only way someone can know what someone else expects. That's why it's batshit crazy.

If you can't understand why you can't know what I expect, then there isn't much I can say. :(
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
User avatar
yesplease
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3765
Joined: Tue 03 Oct 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: The Folly of Growth - New Scientist

Unread postby TonyPrep » Wed 05 Nov 2008, 14:26:57

OK, yesplease, you're not interested in debate and you've ignored many points I've made and many questions I've asked. It's a shame that, even as an anonymous poster, you're scared you might be embarrassed by admitting you're wrong. Perhaps a career as a politician beckons.

For others, to recap on my impressions of yesplease's objections to the New Scientist special report, it seems he thinks it's batshitcrazy (to use YP's term) because it is a truism (i.e. it is obviously true) but is also completely wrong. He thinks the report proposes that only government can re-engineer the economy and disagrees with that (as I would, except that the report doesn't suggest that) and that the report, despite being about indefinite economic growth, wrongly claims that the growth of anything requires more resources, no matter what period is covered.

YP is wrong, IMO, on all of these things and self contradictory in some (e.g. it cannot be a truism and wrong).
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Top

Re: The Folly of Growth - New Scientist

Unread postby yesplease » Thu 06 Nov 2008, 06:19:28

There isn't anything to debate here. Doing stuff along the lines of claiming that what you wrote isn't what you mean, claiming to know what others expect, etc... Just to justify a fairly reasonable assertion is complete B.S. You don't need to know what the rest of the world thinks or continually change what you meant in order to show that there are problems with how we do things, but you insiston the nuttiness. It isn't about whether I'm right or not. If I'm right I'm right, if I'm wrong I'm wrong. There have been many posters who have pointed out what's right and wrong about my statements in a logical and reasonable manner, and that's fine, I've got no problem with that. I do have a problem w/ using batshitcrazy justifications of reasonable statements. All it does is undermine any positive contribution the statment can have.

You, by your own admission, use imaginative speculation to justify what you "know" about what everyone is thinking. It's nuts!$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'H')ow do you know what the behavior of people when they believe in an infinite world? How do you know what everyone is thinking?
It's called speculation, yesplease. Do you really have no imagination?


Anyway, the poor writing of the editorial aside, there isn't anything to rationally discuess with someone who consistently claims that what they wrote isn't what they meant at any given point in time and "knows" what the rest of the world thinks. [smilie=BangHead.gif]
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
User avatar
yesplease
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3765
Joined: Tue 03 Oct 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: The Folly of Growth - New Scientist

Unread postby Alcassin » Thu 06 Nov 2008, 06:35:00

Are you guys playing game "The best pseudointellectual thread ever"?

My nominee is YP.
Runner-up for being involved in endless and pointless discussion: TP.

8)
Peak oil is only an indication and a premise of limits to growth on a finite planet.
Denial is the most predictable of all human responses.
User avatar
Alcassin
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 614
Joined: Wed 20 Jun 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Poland
Top

Re: The Folly of Growth - New Scientist

Unread postby yesplease » Thu 06 Nov 2008, 06:43:32

W3 R t3h winzorz! :lol: :P
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
User avatar
yesplease
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3765
Joined: Tue 03 Oct 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: The Folly of Growth - New Scientist

Unread postby TonyPrep » Thu 06 Nov 2008, 14:18:18

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Alcassin', 'A')re you guys playing game "The best pseudointellectual thread ever"?

My nominee is YP.
Runner-up for being involved in endless and pointless discussion: TP.

8)
It's actually the same thread, Alcassin. Psuedo is the correct prefix for YP's contribution, so thanks for recognizing that.

A truism that's false. That's a cracker.
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Top
PreviousNext
Post a reply

Return to Economics & Finance

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests



cron