HaloNoble6

So, then, the question is: Does one write off scientists whose ethics are anti-man?

I also read through the first article on "Peak Oil," which is also by Hienberg. Apparently the analytical methods, and ethical motivations, for the theory of peak oil come from one M. King Hubbert, "one of the world's best known geophyscists." And now for the payoff: (emphasis mine) Call me crazy, but before analyzing the science of the matter, discovering the ethics driving these scientists is essential.

Check out Richard Heinberg's (author or first article) ethics: (emphasis mine) I don't find abiotic theory very credible.

OK, but what conditions, in terms of the ethics of the men involved, do you think would be necessary for there to be as widespread a lack of understanding of the near end of natural resources as some would have us believe exists? The conditions necessary for scientists at campus labs to know better than the people actually bringing out the oil? Given these conditions, what do you think is the likelyhood of their existence today? I wasn't making a blanket statement about non-profit directed scientific research as such, but about the likelyhood of the validity of such research as compared to private-based, profit-driven research done by the actual companies bringing out the oil. Which leads me to this. Perhaps this last point deserves a thread of its own, but let me ask you. If the government wasn't involved in funding science, do you think there would be nearly as much funding for anything that wasn't either directly or indirectly geared toward making money as there is today? Secondly, would you see that as a trajedy and why or why not?

So does this just boil down to an argument of facts, and to assessing the validity of particular claims? Certainly I don't think anyone is arguing here man could live in a vacuum with nothing but his productive mind. Certainly no one is saying we should toss caution and long-range planning to the wind on the notion that human productivity can work independent of these two. So, what are the facts? I have a more essential question, however. To the people who are seriously concerned about the end of particular natural resources. What is your motive? Are you motivated by self-preservation, by the desire to educate others of what you seem to singularly know, and thereby save yourself from the eminent collapse of entire economies, which would inevitably affect you? Are you looking out for yourself? Do you really think the end of a particular natural resource will come suddenly, abruptly? Or, is it some other motive? I wonder because, while I don't have a "faith" in anything, I have confidence in the free market. That is, I have confidence that those profit-seeking greedy capitalists out there will not be so idiotic as to keep selling fossil-fuel burning products if it is factual that fossil-fuels are dangerously low. I mean, am I going way out on a tree limb here in saying that the people pumping out oil, the people at the ground level, have reasonably good means of predicting whether or not they have enough oil for the next, oh I don't know, 25 years? Don't they monitor oil levels themselves? And if so, wouldn't the profit-motive lead them to plan for life-after-empty if they know they are coming up on empty? Am I a fool for having confidence that they know their industry at least this well and that they are half-witted enough to understand the concept of long-term planning, for the sake of continuing to make money? I mean, also, aren't we talking about a slow process, not a sucker-punch in the gut? Won't those money-seeking bastards have to figure out a way to keep making money after their oil runs out if their oil is truly running out and if they wish to stay in business? Is there some conspiracy going on whereby the oil guys truly are going to be at empty in five years, but they're selling decades-long oil contracts anyway (meaning they truly are this idiotic)? We all know how long such businessmen last. To be truly in trouble here, I'd say they'd have to be some massive conspiracy whereby most oil men would be idiotic enough to get together and lie about how much oil is left. What would be the point of this? Even an idiot-businessman knows that if he can't produce tomorrow, he's done. So where is the evidence that even if oil is to run out in some fifty years that it would be an abrubt collapse? Also, do we here really think that altruistic motives for our fellow man would motivate scientists out there to tell us that we're really in trouble? We all know that while many people accept altruism, no one truly practices it. Do we really think that we have concerned scientists looking out for us, or far more less likely, concerned scientists looking out for themselves in some range-of-the-moment fashion? The profit motive is insatiable, the desire to amass wealth nearly unstoppable. Are we to think that scientists working in their campus labs know better than the people on the ground working with the oil? So, to sum up, on the surface we need to evaluate the facts of any claim as to the longevity of particular natural resources, but also I'm interested in finding out what conditions are necessary for scientists (who are more likely motivated by the "publish or perish" motive) working in campus labs to know better than the profit-seeking oilmen working at the ground level do, in terms of ethics. And, if indeed these conditions are as far-fetched as I suspect they are, what does that mean as far as the motive of the people who are concerned about the running-out of natural resources?

If there is enough to make chicken little scenarios pointless, I agree with you, but I don't have any confidence as to the facts on the issue as I've not looked into it. I'm only interested in sheding light on the idea that if a specific thing is limited, and if the limit is approaching, wouldn't it be worrthwhile to plan for life after this specific thing? If what David is alluding to is that estimates have been increasing every time they make them, and if one can, with confidence, say that there will be nothing but chicken-little scenarios to think of for the next, say, 20 generations, then I'm with you. I just want to admit that if the "ifs" line up, I don't think ignoring an oncoming limitation is wise. But again, I have no idea as to the figures on any of this.

Ignoring human productivity, do you think fossil fuels, for example, are limitless?

Hardcore is everywhere, man. How much startup money is needed for these types of services, typically? And, if you don't mind, how much do you pay for your services?

OK, ignoring the specifics on the numbers, do you think natural resources are limitless or not?

Are you a hardcore investor?

Public service announcement: RSalar will not be with us any longer, don't bother responding to his comments.

A great biography on JA is what you'll get by an O'ist historian. Let me know what you think of JA, and what people have done to his legacy, after you've read it. Bah, please don't let the Jefferson romantics win this battle as they've done every single time since the founding. C'mon people, GW is the singularly most important figure in this country's founding.

Pros of eating meat: -Tasty -Convenient Cons of eating meat: -Possibility of health issues Pros of vegetarianism: -Avoid possible health issues in eating meat Cons of vegetarianism: -Pricey -Not as tasty as eating meat -Possibility of its own health issues Please add any items I've missed. My point is that the answer as to whether to eat meat or not is contextual. It involves knowing the particular physiology of the person in question, the availability/price of meats and vegetables, etc. I think Liriodendron is arguing from a "all things being equal with respect to availability, convenience, taste, etc. (that is, from strictly a health perspective)," one could reach optimal health through vegetarianism. Liriodendron was responding to the blanket statement by someone else saying that vegetarianism is unhealthy and worth avoiding in the person of a romantic partner. But now also Liriodendron wants to know if meat is a, biologically, necessary item in a human's diet. So with this brief summary, I say we've reached the point where we can say both a meat-inclusive and a meat-exclusive diet can be healthy, depending on physiology, but one diet may be more tasty and convenient than the other. Either way, so long as a person does what is objectively best for them, things are ok. I'd say the only thing left unresolved is the question as to whether meat is a necessary food, that is, whether meat provides something that non-meats can't provide for a "normal" human seeking optimal health.

And how do you justify this divorcing of actions from entities that act? How can you talk about actions without talking about the entities that act?

Well, as some will tell you here, I'm rather biased toward John Adams and George Washington, so take my recommendations with that in mind. First I recommend John Adams: The Spirit of Liberty by C. Bradley Thompson. I haven't found a trustworthy bio on any of the other founders, but I generally like what Joseph Ellis writes. For example, Founding Brothers is a fun read. I still haven't read American Sphinx which is supposed to be about TJ.

He did bring a can of whoop-ass with the navy John Adams built, but I say Washington would without hesitation rid of us of this pesky Islamic problem. (By the way, I get really excited about the Fathers, so don't mistake my enthusiasm for animosity!)

Bring it, Nate, you can't possibly argue that Thomas Jefferson would make a better wartime president than GW. No way, no how. The man would provide the moral rock this country so badly needs.

This is a no-contest. G. Washington all the way. Something is wrong with you if you think otherwise.

Yes, let's not get off course here. However, just for the public record, RSalar, did you mean to say that THE FORUM is run by a "dictator?" No need to elaborate on why or how or validate your claim, I just want to know what your claim is. Anything beyond a "yes" or "no" answer will be deleted, as well as any more discussion publicly evaluating any other forum besides this one. Furthermore, I want to make it clear that no one has asked for anyone to evaluate other forums, you did this on your own and now I ask that you come out and say exactly who it is you're evaluating, since you've already underhandedly done so. Your evaluation is yours and yours alone, and you will be judged accordingly.

I don't understand what this means. What are "actions in themselves?" Actions are actions of entities, and every action of an entity has a consequence, and the consequence is either for or against the entity, as determined by the nature of the entity. What part of this reasoning is confusing? If none, then by this line of thought, sex consists of a particular action of an entity, and this action can have good or bad consequences. Actions, per se, aren't entities whom we are judging as good or bad. Is that what you're trying to say? No one treats actions as entities that are to be judged as good or bad. When we say such-and-such act was good or bad, we mean that the consequences of such-and-such act lead to a good or bad result for the entity in question. Further, if the entity knew full well that the act it took would lead to a bad consequence, then we call the entity immoral for doing it, while we call it moral if it did it knowing it would lead to a good consequence. Nevertheless, the knowledge of the entity in question is irrelevent as to whether the act the entity takes results in a good consequence or a bad consequence. Every action is an an action of an entity with consequences for that entity. Sex, as such, is always either good or bad for an entity, just as any other action is either good or bad for it. Perhaps you think sex is like non-living entities whereby they are niether good or bad for man, per se? So for example, we don't say things like "rocks are good for humans" without pointing to particular uses for rock and how they lead to good consequences. So, "rocks in themselves," acontextually, aren't good nor bad for humans, they just are. Rocks are rocks, and discussing good or bad requires a fuller context? But this would be insane since sex isn't an entity and as such it's impossible to discuss "sex in itself" as appart from the humans engaging it. This is why I asked you to define what you thought sex was, but now I want to know, more broadly, what you think the genus "action" is. Do you view actions as floating concepts that aren't good or bad, per se?

Why is this important enough for you to start a thread on it? Of what value is the answer to this question to you and what porpuse will it serve you?

Farrier, you seem to think it rather trivial that "sex is neutral," without explaining what this neutrality is or what you view as the purpose of sex. Neutral based on what standard? Neutral how? Neutral, to me, implies amorality, the "a" in front of this term (as in front of contextual in acontexual) meaning the lack thereof. That is, you seem to think that sex is a form of action that lacks consequences that are either for or against a person's life. You seem to think it trivial that there is such a thing as "neutral actions." I'm baffled by this position because, you see, I view all acts as either for or against one's life, from the most trivial of all acts to the most complex; from the way I sit in my chair while typing this post, to the way I express myself to the people whom are dear to me, all these things have consequences. Perhaps you think there is no difference between living organisms and inanimate matter? Perhaps you do not understand that the existence of living organisms is contingent upon self-generated, self-sustained action? Perhaps the whole concept of life vs. death alludes you? So, care to elaborate on your theory of "neutral actions?"

Well, since it's your position that's in question, perhaps first you can describe what you understand sex to be. In particular, please describe what you think is the point of sex, what you think is its purpose (forgetting for the time being procreation).

The hell it is.

I use acontextually to mean without regard to context, meaning that there is no context for which sex could be harmful to you. Is this your position?