|
self unaware posted:Yeah I don't know how to tell you any more clearly than when a guy says "according to who" he's not looking for a "well, intrinsic value means it isn't decided by an authority" he's asking what the justification for the statement is. But I guess you're hell bent on not arguing in good faith and would rather dunk on the guy than answer a harmless question. You're asking a nonsensical question if you understand the terminology.
|
#
?
May 30, 2018 00:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 04:23 |
|
|
imagine how many less posts you'd have to make if you ever provided justification for whatever it is you're saying. how about some content instead of performance? what is it that I don't understand, it should be pretty simple for you to lay out. and no "would you kill a deer or a human? checkmate" does not count the worst part is people like you only do this stupid poo poo when you're dead wrong. i'll be sitting here as a skeleton before you actually even attempt to explain whatever dumb poo poo you're trying to imply. but feel free to give an honest attempt at explaining why something being intrinsic can or cannot be justified (since that seems to be the point you're trying to make, but honestly I have no clue) Cingulate posted:It'd be perfectly fair of anyone to say "humans don't have intrinsic value" or "humans have the same intrinsic value as ants". this is demonstrably wrong and totally misunderstands what the word means 90s Rememberer fucked around with this message at 01:04 on May 30, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2018 00:59
|
|
|
self unaware posted:imagine how many less posts you'd have to make if you ever provided justification for whatever it is you're saying. how about some content instead of performance? what is it that I don't understand, it should be pretty simple for you to lay out. and no "would you kill a deer or a human? checkmate" does not count Imagine how many fewer posts everyone would have to make if you took the time to understand the terminology being used before posting at all. Neither this argument nor the previous one about externalities would have ever happened. "Intrinsic", when used in argumentation, is the same thing as "basic", "foundational", or "core". It's a starting point and requires no justification. That's not the same thing as "unjustified", because unjustified implies that justification is a factor. Either you agree with the foundational statement(s) and discussion can proceed or you don't and there is no discussion. Cingulate is resolving the question "should we value human lives more highly than other animal s' lives" with "let's assume 'yes'". You can agree that "yes" is an acceptable answer and move on to discussions that assume you both agree with that. You can disagree with "yes" (which covers both "no" and "maybe, but I think the question is worth discussing without assuming an answer"). By declaring the question resolved with a foundational statement, Cingulate is saying they want to proceed with discussion using that as a starting point, rather than questioning the assumption. The silly thing is that you've already agreed with the premise, but you're not trying to move past that point. Instead you're demanding that Cingulate tell you why they agree with you. Stop being a fuckwit.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2018 01:36
|
|
|
that's called axiomatic, not intrinsic. they actually mean different things, hth glad we could clear up your misconception and in this case, you don't need to just say "I accept that human lives have more value than animals as an axiomatic belief" (while that's perfectly fine), it's pretty lazy an unnecessary imo. there are plenty of good reasons to think that beyond "i assume it to be true because it is core to my belief structure". you're not going to win any hearts and minds by just claiming things are because we accept that they are 90s Rememberer fucked around with this message at 01:48 on May 30, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2018 01:44
|
|
|
self unaware posted:that's called axiomatic, not intrinsic. they actually mean different things, hth No, they're the same thing. Saying something has an intrinsic quality is axiomatic. No one is saying the argument can't be justified. What we're saying is that we don't see the point for purposes of discussion. We already agree, so why reinvent the wheel?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2018 01:53
|
|
|
Because people don't already agree with you. That's why you give a justification. And as someone who largely agrees with you, it makes us all look like idiots when you just reply "because it is! that's what intrinsic means!" to someone who questions you. And no, intrinsic and axiomatic are not synonyms, no matter how much you're going to stamp your feet and demand they are. But that's the problem with you taking a page to actually explain what you're trying to say. A better question is why you're going to bat for a guy who was clearly just using "it's intrinsic!" (incorrectly) to shut down someone questioning his justifications for his statements 90s Rememberer fucked around with this message at 01:58 on May 30, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2018 01:55
|
|
|
Personally, because it's a cesspool that I don't want to wade into. If I'm talking to someone who doesn't already agree that it's better to save a human's life than a deer's, then I'd rather find someone else to talk to. Incidentally, that's the same reason I was hoping you'd look up what "intrinsic" means on your own instead of continuing to insist that I explain something to you that you can Google. As such, I'm bowing out.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2018 02:05
|
|
|
Hello Sailor posted:Incidentally, that's the same reason I was hoping you'd look up what "intrinsic" means on your own instead of continuing to insist that I explain something to you that you can Google. As such, I'm bowing out. self unaware posted:And no, intrinsic and axiomatic are not synonyms, no matter how much you're going to stamp your feet and demand they are. Feel free to "google it" and post the link that claims they are synonyms or even mean close to the same thing (even in the context of 'argumentation', which wasn't the original context but i'm guessing you're holding on to that for dear life at this point), but something tells me you'll struggle. Come to think of it, you're exactly like the "externality" guy right down to simply being unable to type dictionary.com in and accept that the definitions for axiomatic and intrinsic aren't the same thing. But yeah, I guess it's a "cess pool" to actually defend or discuss your views or why you have them. Nobody is saying human life doesn't have value, but if you can't come up with a reason for why a human's life is worth more than a deer's other than "it just is" maybe you should go back to the drawing board. 90s Rememberer fucked around with this message at 02:23 on May 30, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2018 02:19
|
|
|
i will organise the ants and you will rue your short-sighted anthropocentrism
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2018 02:22
|
|
|
Hello Sailor posted:Personally, because it's a cesspool that I don't want to wade into. If I'm talking to someone who doesn't already agree that it's better to save a human's life than a deer's, then I'd rather find someone else to talk to. Kinda not accounting for discussion that fits into a space far less extreme than this "should we save a deer or human" false dichotomy nonsense.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2018 02:25
|
|
|
Raise your hand if you legitimately think a discussion on biodiversity and morality will literally sit in a space of "hurr should we kill a deer to save this human" 
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2018 02:27
|
|
|
Two bears each have two guns. One of them is suicidal and homicidal, the other is only homicidal. Which bear do you shoot?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2018 02:31
|
|
|
I shoot myself so I don’t have to listen to this bullshit anymore. As an unexpected side effect I reduce global emissions slightly.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2018 02:37
|
|
|
Chadzok posted:I shoot myself so I don’t have to listen to this bullshit anymore. Truly, the only morally perfect choice.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2018 02:58
|
|
|
this broken hill posted:i will organise the ants and you will rue your short-sighted anthropocentrism not sure your choice of avatar was the best for improving your account life expectancy also, same
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2018 03:57
|
|
|
i would shoot both bears with one bullet by doing the thing where you twist your wrist as you shoot like in that movie
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2018 04:14
|
|
|
a shitposting troll and a sanctimoniousnessly ill informed douchebag are about to be attacked by a mod, you have one image macro, who do you goatse
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2018 04:15
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:a shitposting troll and a sanctimoniousnessly ill informed douchebag are about to be attacked by a mod, you have one image macro, who do you goatse the mod, because I am the second poster
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2018 04:39
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:not sure your choice of avatar was the best for improving your account life expectancy
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2018 08:52
|
|
|
self unaware posted:in this case, you don't need to just say "I accept that human lives have more value than animals as an axiomatic belief" ..., it's pretty ... unnecessary imo Yes, sure, one would think we could start at "humanity is what matters", and then talk about issues, like how to preserve biodiversity given that it's good for people. But no, some here seem to think poor Houstonians deserve to be flooded because we've been mean to Gaia. I think that kind of messaging will utterly fail to effectively convince people, and might even scare off some. Climate change must be softened because it's bad for people. To cheer on some of its effects because we've been a very naughty species - where else have we heard this logic before? When fundies praised Jesus for Katrina destroying New Orleans because of gays.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2018 09:49
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:a shitposting troll and a sanctimoniousnessly ill informed douchebag are about to be attacked by a mod, you have one image macro, who do you goatse Can I shoot any of them? Anyway, is there like a meta thread for discussing discussions and something about the pointless effort of trying to convince other people? I feel that's pretty relevant to this thread, because as we've been shown time and time again it's loving impossible to get someone to change their mind if they are a certain subset of psychological profiles (extreme conservative, extreme religious, authoritarian etc.). I think it's incredibly useful to be able to identify the point where dialogue breaks down (when you are not going to convince the opposing party with good-faith argument and are not in a position where your good-faith arguments may sway an audience) and discussion becomes pointless. Whether it's due to bad faith actors (trolls, fundamentalists, fascist - all of the above who doesn't care about the content of dialogue just the expenditure of effort and the legitimacy participation grants), wilfull ignorance, distrust, faith in opposing authority figures or whatever, I think it's worth diagnosing these situations and coming up with alternatives. Traditionally, the alternative to dialogue in human history has been violence. Civilized nations have created an alternative system for dealing with the breakdown in dialogue and lack of resolution, which would be the court system. This relies on the "violence" of national power to force a solution by impartial arbitor. Obviously, this won't work on a global scale because there is no one-power global actor capable of creating and enforcing international law and judgements on environmental crimes. So, the traditional method of dialogue is out when it comes to climate change because there are too many dissenting voices and that just stalemates democratic resolution. These people can't be convinced and due to mass media/internet will be actively urged to vote against their own interest on this. This can be solved with demographic shifts, but we don't have time for that. It could be solved with a massive propaganda effort, but this isn't practically feasibly and is morally onerous. Courts won't solve it, because they don't exist in a way that will attack the climate change problem in any way but smaller (national enviromental protection laws, company liability for enviro-damage), and establishing such courts would need massive international popular assent (EU comes closest, but won't go far enough and hasn't the reach to impact the world overall). Violence won't solve it, because the world now has military power on the scale of nuclear holocaust at its disposal. Violence as always is a mistake. So what's left? The world is deadlocked in opposing interests, which is a damning indictment of national and global democracy. Where's the solution going to come from? Taking the US as an example, I can't see any kind of compromise being reached with Trump and his corrupt band of corporate overlords. Cingulate posted:So would I have thought, but then I waded into the climate change thread, where some seemingly think ant-doms value is not primarily instrumental (wrt their contribution to humanity's well-being), but ... intrinsic. I see your point, but I think equating religious fundies and people who post about some sort of cosmic karma thing going on anonymously on a dead gay comedy forum is a bit far fetched. I'll say this though: Yes, humans are the only thing that matters. If I could sacrifice 100% of the biomass of earth in exchange for humanity's continued existence and spreading out among the starts or whatever, I would take that bargain in a heartbeat. The value of humans as the only sentient species on the planet and possibly in the universe (for all we know) makes human value absolute both as a general concept and (though I'm hardly impartial in this) our value to ourselves. Of course, we're not there yet and that choice isn't a real choice we have to make. I agree that human suffering is more significant than any other suffering, but there's also a moral (or let's call it karmic) dimension in that humans are also the only creatures on earth with full agency. If there's a mess, we made it, and the consequences of transgressions (ignorant transgressions or not) falling on the transgressor is seemingly hard-wired into our innate sense of justice. With some exceptions. Don't cross your wires on this one. If you're talking about the former concept and everyone else is talking about the latter, both positions are understandable and have merit. Make sure you're discussing the same thing before concluding.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2018 10:09
|
|
|
this broken hill posted:i got un-permabanned, i just had to promise i would never again assassinate a sitting president i assume there is a typo in this post, but if not, welcome back, Lee Harry Oswald
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2018 10:24
|
|
|
I never would have posted about Ellicott City if I had known it would lead to such an irrelevant and obnoxious pages-long argument.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2018 10:38
|
|
|
I don't think it was discussed here, but the Carbon XPrize competition recently selected it's 10 finalists. The goal of the competition is to demonstrate efficient conversion of power plant flue gas CO2 into a marketable product. Notably the current/final round of the competition includes a realistic trial run at large-ish scale:Carbon XPrize posted:Round 3: Teams will demonstrate technologies under real world conditions, at a larger scale. Teams will have access to two test centers adjacent to existing power plants, and will prove their technologies using actual power plant flue gas. Teams must meet minimum requirements and will be scored on how much CO2 they convert and the net value of their products. In each track, the winner will be awarded a $7.5 million grand prize. If any of these carbon capture techs work well enough they can potentially reduce CO2 emissions without rebuilding the entire electricity generation infrastructure. This is definitely a speculative technology-oriented form of climate change mitigation, but given that people are still building fossil fuel plants in 2018 it's worth considering. Also it's a reasonable working hypothesis that the finalists represent the state of the art for point-source carbon capture tech, and if any tech is likely to become viable in the near future it's likely represented in the competition. This article gives a nice description of the competition and why it's fair to be skeptical: Scientific American posted:CO2 Emissions, but Skepticism Remains Here is a rundown of the finalists: quote:The Wyoming Track includes five teams that will demonstrate conversion of CO2 emissions at a coal-fired power plant in Gillette, WY: Good thing we all like concrete!
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2018 11:02
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:Good thing we all like concrete! Isn't concrete curing something like the third biggest greenhouse gas emitting process on earth? If someone can reverse that and still make a good product, that would be brilliant
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2018 11:47
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:I'll say this though: Yes, humans are the only thing that matters. If I could sacrifice 100% of the biomass of earth in exchange for humanity's continued existence and spreading out among the starts or whatever, I would take that bargain in a heartbeat. The value of humans as the only sentient species on the planet and possibly in the universe (for all we know) makes human value absolute both as a general concept and (though I'm hardly impartial in this) our value to ourselves. Of course, we're not there yet and that choice isn't a real choice we have to make. I agree that human suffering is more significant than any other suffering, but there's also a moral (or let's call it karmic) dimension in that humans are also the only creatures on earth with full agency. If there's a mess, we made it, and the consequences of transgressions (ignorant transgressions or not) falling on the transgressor is seemingly hard-wired into our innate sense of justice. With some exceptions.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2018 12:09
|
|
|
starkebn posted:Isn't concrete curing something like the third biggest greenhouse gas emitting process on earth? If someone can reverse that and still make a good product, that would be brilliant It looks like most of the concrete-oriented finalists sequester concentrated flue gas CO2 by injecting it into wet concrete to form calcium carbonate mineral. It's not clear if the amount sequestered cancels out the amount emitted to produce the cement used to make the concrete, both by the chemical process itself AND the energy required to heat the limestone. It's also not clear if the improved material properties of the resulting concrete are worth all the extra cost. Presumably these are questions the competition can help answer! The bigger issue is a question of scale, global per capita CO2 emissions from fossil fuel electricity generation emissions are ~1 Gt/year, while concrete consumption is ~0.5t/year. We simply don't produce anywhere near enough concrete to sequester CO2 from fossil fuel generation. The Nature paper referenced in that article makes that same point: Nature posted:The role of CO2 capture and utilization in mitigating climate change So making fossil fuel electricity generation have zero emissions still requires conventional carbon capture and storage (which likely needs a subsidy or carbon tax to incentivize), in which case it's not clear why it's worth bothering about also producing products from the flue gas.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2018 14:16
|
|
|
I think if it can help offset the cost of capturing CO2, it's a worthwhile effort. If we want companies to act in their short term best interest, stacking all of the accretive benefits only makes implementing the project that much more attractive. Ultimately it won't be the final solution but if it helps propogate additional research and development, I'm all for it. Plus, who's to say that if we suddenly flooded the market with cheap (subsidy backed) concrete we wouldn't find a way to use more of it over other alternatives. I'm curious what stack temperatures the two pilot plants have. Presumably the CCS systems are using waste heat to drive part of the process. Modern power plants are designed to capture the majority of that waste heat via boiler feedwater preheaters and combustion air preheaters down to the acid dew point leaving very little sensible heat in the flue gas stream.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2018 14:30
|
|
|
With May drawing to a close, I just want to remind everyone that climate change is completely self-correcting. May has been the hottest May on record here in Denmark, and the sunniest month ever - so everyone is opting to stay in sunny Denmark instead of flying to cold and dreary Spain. Our farmers have also cut back on fungicides, since fungi aren't big fans of the sun. All in all, global warming is really coming into its own as a positive thing. Do not listen to the naysayer farmers complaining about droughts ruining half their crops.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2018 16:10
|
|
|
spf3million posted:I think if it can help offset the cost of capturing CO2, it's a worthwhile effort. If we want companies to act in their short term best interest, stacking all of the accretive benefits only makes implementing the project that much more attractive. Dunno man, should we really let governments punish concrete companies - and hurt the economy - by forcing them to implement these green-thumb carbon sequestration technologies? It seem like we'll still be emitting a lot of carbon even if we do it perfectly, so it doesn't look like a solution to me. Maybe we should just wait for the right technologies to show up to replace concrete with a cheaper, more environmentally friendly alternative, and leave the free market to handle the implementation, otherwise we're just shooting ourselves in the foot for no reason.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2018 17:29
|
|
|
spf3million posted:This is a pretty dumb derail even by this thread's standards. Both, really. France (and European countries more generally) has better mass transit infrastructure that reduces the need to drive, which puts their emissions lower to begin with, and France's nuke plants mean that electricity generation is mostly clean. Some of the cheapest in Europe too.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2018 18:06
|
|
|
I’m highly skeptical that any technology reliant on continued fossil fuel use by power plants for a large portion of our grid past 2050 as a wise utilization of our resources. It risks either being quickly replaced when we shutter the fossil fuel plants or worse we incentivize the continued use of fossil fuel plants. The idea that we can maintain a fossil fuel burning grid into the outyears is a fantasy pushed by the coal and natural gas industry. That XPRIZE is funded by one of the larger coal/ng using utilities, for example. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 18:29 on May 30, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2018 18:24
|
|
|
There are other sources of CO2 besides flue gas from a coal plant. It can be produced from bioenergy (i.e. BECCS) and if you don't require high purity you can even get it from direct air capture. Given that most <2C scenarios have us pulling gigatons of carbon out of the atmosphere by mid-century I'd actually argue it's irresponsible not to find potential uses for it.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2018 18:55
|
|
|
Imagine being okay with killing the entire biosphere in exchange for being able to live in lifeless habitats on cold rocks.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2018 23:57
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:There are other sources of CO2 besides flue gas from a coal plant. It can be produced from bioenergy (i.e. BECCS) and if you don't require high purity you can even get it from direct air capture. Given that most <2C scenarios have us pulling gigatons of carbon out of the atmosphere by mid-century I'd actually argue it's irresponsible not to find potential uses for it. You're confusing finding uses for sequestered CO2, which is all find and dandy, and developing CCS for fossil fuels, which is the technology I'm skeptical about. Those X-prize projects are specifically about CCS for coal and gas fired power plants, not new uses for already sequestered CO2. But that's what you expect from an alliance of NRG and Canadian Oil Sands producers.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 00:16
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:You're confusing finding uses for sequestered CO2, which is all find and dandy, and developing CCS for fossil fuels, which is the technology I'm skeptical about. No, I think you're confused. Read the Scientific American article. It's not about developing CCS for fossil fuels, it's about finding industrial uses for CO2. But regardless, there is really not a huge difference between CCS for coal and for bioenergy: at the end of the day you are still removing and concentrating CO2 from flue gas. It's the same basic process.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 02:51
|
|
|
trying to burn more poo poo so that you can capture some fraction of the co2 on the way out is like when the oxy addict who got into heroin a few years ago asks their dealer if they have any with fent in it its just loving degenerate junky logic (p.s. oil sands was when we went heroin)
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 03:22
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:trying to burn more poo poo so that you can capture some fraction of the co2 on the way out is like when the oxy addict who got into heroin a few years ago asks their dealer if they have any with fent in it Okay, but the issue isn't whether to "burn more poo poo". We're talking about carbon capture and storage. And if you don't want carbon capture and storage, that's equivalent to saying all the carbon that's in the air is going to stay there for thousands or tens of thousands of years. It not longer makes sense to reduce CCS to "burning more poo poo" because the most plausible option we have for negative emissions is bioenergy with carbon capture and storage. And maybe you want to say something like, "That poo poo is never going to work; don't even try", but the proper response there is "Okay, rear end in a top hat". If you're so nihilistic you don't even want to try fixing the problem then you're worthless.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 03:47
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:No, I think you're confused. Read the Scientific American article. It's not about developing CCS for fossil fuels, it's about finding industrial uses for CO2. But regardless, there is really not a huge difference between CCS for coal and for bioenergy: at the end of the day you are still removing and concentrating CO2 from flue gas. It's the same basic process. The "Carbon X Prize" is explicitly judged based on the team's ability to capture CO2 from either coal or natural gas flue gas, so yeah that's exactly what the competition is about. But straight from the SciAmerican article, since you accept them as a source: quote:A group of 47 teams from across the world initially submitted proposals. The remaining 10 teams will compete in two groups. One will test their technologies at a coal-fired power plant in Gillette, Wyo. The other will compete at a natural gas plant in Calgary, Alberta. Winners will be announced in 2020. They will split the $20 million purse. You're purposefully trying to muddy the waters between CCS for fossil fuels and other forms of CCS so that you can accuse anyone who is skeptical of the former of hating the later. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 05:03 on May 31, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 05:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 04:23 |
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:The "Carbon X Prize" is explicitly judged based on the team's ability to capture CO2 from either coal or natural gas flue gas, so yeah that's exactly what the competition is about. Nothing in that contradicts a word I've said or supports a word you've said. Honestly your inability to accept that you're objectively and blatantly wrong here speaks volumes. Yes, the competition uses CO2 taken from a coal plant, but I'll list some of the finalists' projects again: "producing methanol", "producing solid carbonates", "producing stronger, greener concrete", "producing carbon nanotubes". Do these sound like methods to capture carbon from flue gas, or do they sound like industrial uses of CO2? Feel free to keep digging yourself deeper into this hole, or not even bothering to respond. quote:You're purposefully trying to muddy the waters between CCS for fossil fuels and other forms of CCS so that you can accuse anyone who is skeptical of the former of hating the later. Again, the technology is the same whether you're using it for fossil fuels or not. You either support developing the technology or you don't. The distinction between fossil and non-fossil CCS does not exist.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 06:41
|
|