Comments - A treatise on the meaning of Evoke, from a pessimistic perspective - Urgent Evoke2024-03-29T16:00:24Zhttp://www.urgentevoke.com/profiles/comment/feed?attachedTo=4871302%3ABlogPost%3A85253&xn_auth=no@Iron That is what I read fro…tag:www.urgentevoke.com,2010-05-23:4871302:Comment:1540962010-05-23T02:54:23.608ZGreg Stevensonhttp://www.urgentevoke.com/profile/GregStevenson
@Iron That is what I read from your original post. Collapse is inevitable and within your lifetime, therefore bunker and a shotgun (to keep others out of your bunker) will get you personally to a life with perhaps 5 out of 6 of your fellow humans dead and you quite content to figure out how to light a fire using two sticks to burn the bodies.
@Iron That is what I read from your original post. Collapse is inevitable and within your lifetime, therefore bunker and a shotgun (to keep others out of your bunker) will get you personally to a life with perhaps 5 out of 6 of your fellow humans dead and you quite content to figure out how to light a fire using two sticks to burn the bodies. Quote: @Iron Excellent and ti…tag:www.urgentevoke.com,2010-05-22:4871302:Comment:1540092010-05-22T06:47:01.151ZIron Helixhttp://www.urgentevoke.com/profile/IronHelix
Quote: <i>@Iron Excellent and timely validation of your original argument. Is the solution still a bunker and a loaded shotgun in your back yard?</i><br />
<br />
It’s going to vary from person to person. If you feel that you need a shotgun, then by all means, get one. But a shotgun + bunker is not going to solve the issue of being forced to live in a less complex way. The solution is mostly psychological. People are going to have to accept what it means to live a “simpler life”, and that largely depends…
Quote: <i>@Iron Excellent and timely validation of your original argument. Is the solution still a bunker and a loaded shotgun in your back yard?</i><br />
<br />
It’s going to vary from person to person. If you feel that you need a shotgun, then by all means, get one. But a shotgun + bunker is not going to solve the issue of being forced to live in a less complex way. The solution is mostly psychological. People are going to have to accept what it means to live a “simpler life”, and that largely depends on the individuals current paradigms. If a person is working 9-5 in a cubicle on Manhattan, simplifying their life may be a lot harder than someone in rural Mexico. Harder both physically and mentally.<br />
<br />
I used to say things like, “well you should look around you and notice all the things complex society provides for you—now take them away”. Truth is, that’s not good enough. It’s a nice mental exercise but in reality does squat to actually prepare people. True preparation means accepting the loss of complexity: a loss in standard of living, a loss of sanitation standards, a loss of comfort, a loss in life expectancy, etc.<br />
<br />
It’s especially hard for people to accept this when they have children or other dependents.<br />
<br />
The shotgun + bunker approach only extends the amount of time one can cling to complexity. It accomplishes the goal of boosting survival chances during turbulent times, often associated with collapse, but it is not a solution, per se. @Iron Excellent and timely va…tag:www.urgentevoke.com,2010-05-22:4871302:Comment:1539812010-05-22T00:30:19.486ZGreg Stevensonhttp://www.urgentevoke.com/profile/GregStevenson
@Iron Excellent and timely validation of your original argument. Is the solution still a bunker and a loaded shotgun in your back yard?
@Iron Excellent and timely validation of your original argument. Is the solution still a bunker and a loaded shotgun in your back yard? http://scitizen.com/future-en…tag:www.urgentevoke.com,2010-05-21:4871302:Comment:1539722010-05-21T22:52:29.412ZIron Helixhttp://www.urgentevoke.com/profile/IronHelix
<a href="http://scitizen.com/future-energies/the-wages-of-complexity_a-14-3496.html" target="_blank">http://scitizen.com/future-energies/the-wages-of-complexity_a-14-3496.html</a>
<a href="http://scitizen.com/future-energies/the-wages-of-complexity_a-14-3496.html" target="_blank">http://scitizen.com/future-energies/the-wages-of-complexity_a-14-3496.html</a> Progress is about potential.…tag:www.urgentevoke.com,2010-04-30:4871302:Comment:1092312010-04-30T07:22:57.504ZMad Earthhttp://www.urgentevoke.com/profile/MadEarth
Progress is about potential. Puddle is a gas flower. Reverse yer' osmosed hypnosis, deweds and duodecagonoctal loons! You generate activity, when you're healthful. Think of that material! What're the chances of infiniti? Actual... Suppose we aren't the sun's to be soaked. Earth is a space-traversing nuclear vehicle if we use that sticky goo for a BALANCED explosion...
Progress is about potential. Puddle is a gas flower. Reverse yer' osmosed hypnosis, deweds and duodecagonoctal loons! You generate activity, when you're healthful. Think of that material! What're the chances of infiniti? Actual... Suppose we aren't the sun's to be soaked. Earth is a space-traversing nuclear vehicle if we use that sticky goo for a BALANCED explosion... Quote: You make claims that a…tag:www.urgentevoke.com,2010-04-27:4871302:Comment:1066362010-04-27T22:14:32.714ZIron Helixhttp://www.urgentevoke.com/profile/IronHelix
<b>Quote: You make claims that are smart assumptions, but slant them like they are sub-conclusions; then an equivocation occurs between an assumption and another concept which is in turn used to support an ambitious claim. For instance: you assume world problem-solving stasis is impossible. Sure. But then you equivocate between stasis and sustainable states. A sustainable state is not the same as a static state. This equivocation helps support the conclusion that solving for sustainability is…</b>
<b>Quote: You make claims that are smart assumptions, but slant them like they are sub-conclusions; then an equivocation occurs between an assumption and another concept which is in turn used to support an ambitious claim. For instance: you assume world problem-solving stasis is impossible. Sure. But then you equivocate between stasis and sustainable states. A sustainable state is not the same as a static state. This equivocation helps support the conclusion that solving for sustainability is impossible.</b><br />
<br />
I never meant to say sustainability means stasis. In fact I do believe I said just the opposite:<br />
<br />
<i>“The problems that face human societies are innumerous in quantity and infinite in scope. Sustainability, it can then be said, is never a point that is reached. Sustainability means always solving new problems. Sustainable society can never reach stasis.”</i><br />
<br />
Nowhere else did I refer to sustainability as stasis or being anything like stasis. The aforementioned quote was the establishment of my belief that sustainability means being able to constantly address and solve whatever new problems occur. Stasis, as inferred by the quote means reaching a point where all problems are solved and no more are to be had. That was creating the idea that sustainability does not mean “no further problems” (i.e. stasis). So when I then refer to equilibrium, I say: “There will always be one more problem to overcome that requires the balance to be shifted.” You state that my conclusion was that “problem-solving for sustainability is impossible.” That is itself a perversion. I had just stated that sustainability <i>means</i> problem solving and doing so ad infinitum. Perhaps I was stretching when I made the conclusion that given sufficient time, sustainability is inevitably doomed, but mathematically it’s not. Let’s say a lottery ticket represents a catastrophic problem. As time progresses, more and more chances are given that that lottery ticket will be the winning one. Given an infinite amount of time, it’s a forgone conclusion that it will. You could say that’s irrelevant as its pertinence to any given situation faced on the Earth is unknowable, and to that I would concede you would have a point. However, when taking the effects of marginal returns into account, I tried to note that society’s ability to problem solve is largely dependent on the rate of return for it’s efforts, and that if such efforts eventually reach a point where a problem requires an effort beyond the ability of society to provide due directly to insufficient surplus (i.e. marginal yield), then that society’s sustainability is in jeopardy. My opinion was that such a point is sooner, rather than later. I largely base that off of society’s dependence upon an energy source that is finite and is clearly demonstrating the effects of diminishing marginal return. My opinion, being that of a pessimistic perspective, is not infallible.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Quote: Other premises are used which appear to be conceptual in nature, but are in fact empirical and false: “But growth or time itself will bring about more complex problems, in turn requiring an increase in the costliness of the solution” We are asked to accept that complexity of problems correlates positively with costliness of solutions – which is not a given and if there is some truth to it, it is not universal. Tasks can be reorganized to require less energy keeping previous standards of output, like the invention of procedures capitalizing on levers. Leverage is the quite general counterexample to the correlation. Leverage will in turn create greater complexity only in way of opportunity, not required increased energy expense (that would be scientifically perverse – operation, both mechanical and human, decreases with a lever).</b><br />
<br />
<br />
Complexity for the problem in that case is not being increased. What’s being increased is the complexity of the solution (i.e. leverage). Increased complexity would more likely be the requirement for two levers or increasing the load weight. But let’s stick with a single lever. If the requirement is to move the load a certain distance, then a certain amount of energy is going to be required. You can halve the force exerted to move the load by increasing the lever length, but in turn you are moving the load only half the distance. The overall energy required will still be the same since you now must move the exerted .5x force over 2x distance. Energy = force x distance. If the problem were truly increasing in complexity, then that would be equivalent to an increase in the load weight, in turn requiring greater energy to move.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Quote: The anticipated counterpoint is that it is human nature to maximize on leverage, and that that is what will cause eventual unsustainable complexity. The point is made that maximizing standards of living for those that are just above existence levels is unsustainable. The point is generalizable to all maximization of living conditions. You go this direction when you state that people choose unsustainable social organizations by refusing to accept a loss of complexity in their own lives. But what these claims about human nature and maximization show is a need for temperance. Your pessimistic predictions, therefore, rest on an empirical appraisal of our ability to be temperate. That pessimistic appraisal is a legitimate opinion, but it is not the aim of your essay to prove. That would require an essay about maximization and human psychology. And that calls back to my first post and my inspiration to write about temperance.</b><br />
<br />
Excellent. I'm happy that you're interes…tag:www.urgentevoke.com,2010-04-27:4871302:Comment:1065752010-04-27T20:13:04.342ZJeremy Laird Hogghttp://www.urgentevoke.com/profile/JeremyLairdHogg
I'm happy that you're interested enough to find my multiplicity of holes. But I would beseech you not to be greedy and keep them to yourself.
I'm happy that you're interested enough to find my multiplicity of holes. But I would beseech you not to be greedy and keep them to yourself. Jeremy, I'm starting to like…tag:www.urgentevoke.com,2010-04-27:4871302:Comment:1065522010-04-27T19:49:24.316ZEthan Waldenhttp://www.urgentevoke.com/profile/EthanWalden
Jeremy, I'm starting to like this conversation too,<br />
I'll let you know a secret, that is oh so pertinent to this conversation:<br />
In order to reveal each extra hole you are finding,<br />
you are making statements with three wholes in them.<br />
Consider your marginal return.
Jeremy, I'm starting to like this conversation too,<br />
I'll let you know a secret, that is oh so pertinent to this conversation:<br />
In order to reveal each extra hole you are finding,<br />
you are making statements with three wholes in them.<br />
Consider your marginal return. T0 Julio Cesar Corona Ortega…tag:www.urgentevoke.com,2010-04-27:4871302:Comment:1065202010-04-27T19:20:10.520ZJeremy Laird Hogghttp://www.urgentevoke.com/profile/JeremyLairdHogg
T0 Julio Cesar Corona Ortega<br />
[quoting me quantifying how I had been maligned] “You did the same thing in your original reply to Iron, sir.”<br />
<br />
I was frustrated by the expectation that my opinion would be lost in the majority opinion of praise. However, the rudeness I received in return is not justified; in fact, even if you are arguing from the fairness of revenge (which you are, unknowingly I hope), the counter-rudeness toward me was unequal in magnitude.<br />
<br />
“You are obviously not showing any…
T0 Julio Cesar Corona Ortega<br />
[quoting me quantifying how I had been maligned] “You did the same thing in your original reply to Iron, sir.”<br />
<br />
I was frustrated by the expectation that my opinion would be lost in the majority opinion of praise. However, the rudeness I received in return is not justified; in fact, even if you are arguing from the fairness of revenge (which you are, unknowingly I hope), the counter-rudeness toward me was unequal in magnitude.<br />
<br />
“You are obviously not showing any respect either, and you appear to be quick to take a needlessly radical position when others do not agree with you. In other words, a tantrum.”<br />
Pure invalidation and name calling.<br />
<br />
“Saying what you believe is not only perfectly fine, but welcomed in the discourse. Even dissenting opinions should be greeted kindly and taken into account. It is when you lower yourself to belittling and insulting other's intelligence -eloquently though it may be - that your opinion becomes an unwelcomed one.”<br />
<br />
I was belittled. You’re blaming the victim. I am, I know, making abrasive accusations about the lack of fair fighting going on. But that abrasion is not belittling; saying anything at all, even trying to couch my assertive ‘no’ to rudeness is being taken to task.<br />
<br />
“I see on your profile that you pride yourself in your self-proclaimed ability to find holes in an argument and utilizing your verbosity to point what you consider to be absurd. Instead, however, you are coming across as antagonistic and accusatory. I would highly advice you to reconsider how you are approaching this debate.”<br />
<br />
I am indeed the antagonist here, painted by yourself and others into that role. With help from my profile. Thorough. And I am definitely accusing. Accusing you of being mean and unfair; kicking me while I am unpopular with paper thin rationalization. My approach: balanced between trying to be fair / argumentatively cooperative and not prostrating myself to stop the abuse. If I haven’t been perfect, my effort should be clear.<br />
<br />
“On a more personal note, I would dread to have you as a GM.”<br />
<br />
? The wholehearted and focused use of words to hurt (no other use is visible). Get it in gear. to Iron Helix
“So I’m making…tag:www.urgentevoke.com,2010-04-27:4871302:Comment:1065182010-04-27T19:18:47.745ZJeremy Laird Hogghttp://www.urgentevoke.com/profile/JeremyLairdHogg
to Iron Helix<br />
“So I’m making ambitious claims, yet stating the obvious at the same time? Why would you criticize me previously for not defining what you now refer to as obvious? Marginal returns are more than what you think they are. People often do not take marginal returns into account for their problem solving. I have witnessed on several occasions suggestions that when observed with the perspective of a marginal yield and a cost/benefit ratio, suddenly do not make sense. If it doesn’t take…
to Iron Helix<br />
“So I’m making ambitious claims, yet stating the obvious at the same time? Why would you criticize me previously for not defining what you now refer to as obvious? Marginal returns are more than what you think they are. People often do not take marginal returns into account for their problem solving. I have witnessed on several occasions suggestions that when observed with the perspective of a marginal yield and a cost/benefit ratio, suddenly do not make sense. If it doesn’t take an argument to see that, then why did I find the need to point it out? Maybe because your assumption that the issue is obvious is incorrect? Making my own assumption, I’m guessing that the ambitious claim you are referring to is that marginal yields lead to collapse. This again is where I have tried to provide historical references as well as modern microcosm examples. To make a projection from these things is not begging the question. It is making an extrapolation… one based on what you call “obvious”.”<br />
<br />
I’m definitely starting to like the argument somewhat more now. You make claims that are smart assumptions, but slant them like they are sub-conclusions; then an equivocation occurs between an assumption and another concept which is in turn used to support an ambitious claim. For instance: you assume world problem-solving stasis is impossible. Sure. But then you equivocate between stasis and sustainable states. A sustainable state is not the same as a static state. This equivocation helps support the conclusion that solving for sustainability is impossible.<br />
<br />
Other premises are used which appear to be conceptual in nature, but are in fact empirical and false: “But growth or time itself will bring about more complex problems, in turn requiring an increase in the costliness of the solution” We are asked to accept that complexity of problems correlates positively with costliness of solutions – which is not a given and if there is some truth to it, it is not universal. Tasks can be reorganized to require less energy keeping previous standards of output, like the invention of procedures capitalizing on levers. Leverage is the quite general counterexample to the correlation. Leverage will in turn create greater complexity only in way of opportunity, not required increased energy expense (that would be scientifically perverse – operation, both mechanical and human, decreases with a lever).<br />
<br />
The anticipated counterpoint is that it is human nature to maximize on leverage, and that that is what will cause eventual unsustainable complexity. The point is made that maximizing standards of living for those that are just above existence levels is unsustainable. The point is generalizable to all maximization of living conditions. You go this direction when you state that people choose unsustainable social organizations by refusing to accept a loss of complexity in their own lives. But what these claims about human nature and maximization show is a need for temperance. Your pessimistic predictions, therefore, rest on an empirical appraisal of our ability to be temperate. That pessimistic appraisal is a legitimate opinion, but it is not the aim of your essay to prove. That would require an essay about maximization and human psychology. And that calls back to my first post and my inspiration to write about temperance.