rosencrantz

The basic idea is pretty simple. Once there is enough CO2 in the atmosphere there will be a new stable state that includes a change of the global climate. Though this may be good for some regions it will be dire for other regions. So far there are feedback mechanisms that balance the effect of CO2 out. But when those mechanisms don't work any more you will see drastic changes pretty fast. As with most coupled systems, there is no superposition possible. That means an increase of CO2 does not lead to an a proportionate increase of temperature because of the coupled system and because of said mechanism. This means once you see a drastic change it is very hard to undo.

To critique a position it is a good idea to pass the ideological Turing Test (in this case the scientific Turing test). That is, can you summarize a position that you disagree with in such a way that your written summary could be mistaken for an argument of the opposing side? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_Turing_Test People critisize what they can understand (the government interferes with science, there are lobbyists for global warming) while not thoroughly understanding the tenets of the scientific theory. If you want to see if AGW is true or not you first have to understand the theory. Then you can look if it is backed up by evidence. Both these steps include a scientific literacy that few have.

This is only the case if there is a normal distribution of wealth. In reality, wealth is distributed following the power law. There is a bell curve distribution for height. Most Americans have a height of 5,8 feet with one standard deviation above and below. This also means there is not one single person who is say 16 feet tall. With wealth following the power distribution there are no such restrictions. Bill Gates is the equivalent of a 16 feet giant coming into a room and skewing the statistical data. That is an emergent feature of a (relatively) free trade system, that is set up as a network. Those companies or persons that get their revenue from many other persons or companies and that spend their money on a relatively smaller amount of people or companies become richer. It is much more likely that I buy something Bill Gates offers than the reverse. Since most people get their income from a single source (their employer) and spend it on many several sources (their landlord, food, entertainment) there is a natural imbalance towards few getting richer pretty fast. This natural imbalance makes debt necessary that comes either directly from banks or from rich people / companies lending it to you. To make some money as a company you want to have you have to spend a lot of money first, which is loaned into existence basically.

Private banks loan much more money into existence than the state. That's right, but when you deposit money at a bank, this money is used as a collateral by the bank to create much more money than is put in. If a bank gets 100€ say, it keeps 10€ as a safety while loaning out 90€.

To comment on a general topic. Yes, the economic is a zero sum game. If you create money out of thin air you can either give it to somebody for free or lend it at an interest. In both cases, no additional money was created because the equations on both sides add up to 0. The sum of all transactions when done in double bookkeeping has to be 0 by definiton. For more, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balances_Mechanics

The story was in no way ready. The local press reported a bit after New Years Eve. The national press wrote nothing. People in social media made a stink. The whole event was downplayed (it's about rape culture you see not a specific culture / religion). No. Dozens of women were assaulted. The number thousand is made up by you. The presence of the police has gone back in Germany due to austerity. There is no such agenda. Do some research before you write. And think a bit.

I get that Shirgall. But to extend that idea would imply that Apple or Generals Motors don't exist as well. Not to speak of more abstract ideas like freedom or happiness.

So a concept is building roads?

?

Terrorism is the use of force to achieve political change. Thus it is an terroristic act.

I ran across this remarkable piece by a teenager of a econ professor. Caplan raises his children peacefully which shows already very promising results. He posted an article by him in which he shows that his son can argue for the other side and being convincing while doing so (the ideological Turing test). Pretty remarkable if you ask me. http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2016/01/a_teen_tries_th.html That made me day and gives me hope for future generations.

I suppose he got nice soups.

Which philosophers have you read and what philosophical topics did you study?

Nothing. Once anonymous transactions become available for everybody, the state dies away. For more read Snowcrash, where the president of the United States lives in a trailerpark in Alaska

It seems as of today that this is not possible. Imagine you and your friend both have a sealed letter. You know they both contain numbers that add up to 10. You open your letter and it says 7. Then you know that your friends letter has the number 3 in it. This is a rough idea what entanglement is. For more see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem

You got it exactly wrong. There are apodictic statements "You shall not steal" and casuistic "If you buy something, you have to pay for it". Only the latter are if / then statements.

Great presentation. A minor historical correction though: The Hyperinflation in Weimar was not connected to the rise of Hitler. The Inflation began as a response to pay of government debts and ended in 1923. The crash in 1932 was deflationary in Austria and Germany. In fact, Brüning the chancellor before Hitler instituted an economic regime that looks like Austerity does today.

the year where we find out once and for all that predictions about the future are notoriously difficult.

It is once you think about coupled diff equations for a bit

The Lorenz equations describe a very general model of the atmosphere https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenz_system How so?

When I was drafted at 18 my IQ was tested at 130 (I-S-T AT) / 145 (AW IQ).

The atmosphere can be described by coupled non linear differential equations. Hence there can't be an equilibrium, only attractors.

Other reasons for Fermi's paradox are: - Alien civilisations wipe each other out before they can start sending data (remember we escaped nuclear twice with a lot of luck in 1963 and 1983). - They transmit encrypted data whose entropy is not distinguishable from random noises (Snowden's argument) - The least likely argument forwarded by Nick Bostrom: we live in a simulation created by our progeny.

Domain Name: SPACE.COM Registrar: NETWORK SOLUTIONS, LLC. Sponsoring Registrar IANA ID: 2 Whois Server: whois.networksolutions.com Referral URL: http://networksolutions.com Name Server: NS-1150.AWSDNS-15.ORG Name Server: NS-2020.AWSDNS-60.CO.UK Name Server: NS-380.AWSDNS-47.COM Name Server: NS-755.AWSDNS-30.NE It takes about 5 seconds to use who is and to verify what mrcapitalism's claims. But why do that when you can have a nice conspiracy theory?

Following John Locke and other thinkers you can get to the Non Aggression Principles using axioms (first principles) and logically deduction. This views the human mind as a blank slate in the sense that everybody can understand the NAP and adhere to it. On the other hand, the r/K selection theory seems to indicate that there is a fundamental difference on how human minds work and on how likely it is that they will grasp the NAP and live in accordance to it. If that is true, doesn't that invalidate the universality of the NAP?