-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2012 |OT3| If it's not a legitimate OT the mods have ways to shut it down
- Thread starter pigeon
- Start date
- Status
jamesinclair
Banned
Hm, theres nothing on their website limiting US usage. All the sports betting websites have sections talking about us user limits.
Because they like money. Good luck setting up an account with a US bank account
You're assuming we won't be able to colonize mars or the numerous moons and dwarf planets in our own solar system without terraforming.
And interstellar travel is not fantasy. Advancements in propulsion technologically alone could get it done to systems within 15-20 Light Years. Especially when you factor in much longer lifespans. Taking a 50 year trip to a neighboring star system isn't a big deal if you're average life expectancy is a 1000.
Now, intergalactic travel. That's a different discussion.
How do you predict people will earn income in a laborless society? Or do you think that technology will magically stop advancing in the next 50 years?
"Page Not Found"
I'm convinced.
I'll believe that's within the realm of our ability and desire when it happens.
We won't even have to make our own posts anymore! Kosmo is a model of post scarcity message board posting. Neo neo GAF here we come
PhoenixDark
Banned
I think it depends on who democrats nominate, and what the economy looks like. Obama and Hillary are two of the best politicians in recent memory; they're able to raise money and survive attacks that would likely sink most other candidates, simply due to how much they energize certain demographics within the party; imo it's highly unlikely a (scandal-less) President John Edwards could maneuver through such a bad economy and stay afloat, for instance.
A scandal or sluggish economy could convince people to give a decent republican a shot in 2016, especially if the democrat nominee was not Hillary Clinton; that's basically how the inoffensive W Bush beat Gore. Hell, a decent republican SHOULD be able to beat Obama in this economy. Republicans could likely defeat a Romney-esque democrat in 2016, staving off talk of their demise by demographics. For instance, imagine a Jeb Bush v Andrew Cuomo election: Bush could certainly win that. The problem is that Bush would have a hard time getting nominated due to his record on immigration, assuming the base continues to get more and more insane.
My internet is acting weird, try this -
http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/wsfs/docs/Issues_papers/HLEF2050_Global_Agriculture.pdf
If this doesn't work, google "fao world agriculture towards 2050", it's a PDF.
OrsonWellsClap.jpg
Honestly, I can see in the far future a situation where the only thing of value anymore are raw elements that get fed into highly advanced 3d printing devices to print out basically anything.
That is of course, if we aren't all living in completely digitized virtual reality environments by then, having left behind our biological bodies.
speculawyer
Member
Technology cannot abrogate the laws of physics and thermodynamics.
Basileus777
Member
It's a big deal if you are proposing space colonization as a solution to limited resources on Earth in the 21st century.
I think Huntsman would be beating Obama right now.
Thermodynamics?
The sun provide us more energy than we will ever need.
Precious elements is a different story.
But most analysis I've seen suggests that we're not close to exhausting those - we have only mine a really really tiny part of the world's crust.
And hey, if I'm wrong, ASTEROID MINING!
win win in my book.
Edit: immortality, now that will destroy humanity (runs).
speculawyer
Member
They have heavily changed their stance on gays although they won't admit it. The standard conservative position was that homosexuality should be a crime not so long ago. It was only 2003 that the Supreme court threw out homosexual criminal laws (with those fucks Scalia and Thomas in dissent)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas
Talk about being on the wrong side of history.
So even though they don't support gay marriage, they've come a long way.
jamesinclair
Banned
This is bs I want free money.
Im no longer voting for Obama and his socialist ways. Let me participate in a free market obozo.
I dont see how this is any more gambling than zecco is, and why big government is interfering with my ability to invest
Honestly, at this point it feels like he`s being McCained. I think he's just getting handled beyond his expectations.
Give an example of where that applies in a likely major 21st century issue.
Realistic interstellar travel likely wont happen until next century. I'm merely pointing out the falseness that assumes interstellar travel will forever be a fantasy. It can be done.
CharlieDigital
Banned
Dunno, but he might have meant in terms of our climate. It is possible that if global warming trends continue, for example, that sea levels will rise which will reduce our arable farm land and freshwater supplies by virtue of engulfing lowlands. Even a relatively minor temperature shift in either direction, which may not lead to such a scenario, could have dangerous effects on crop output which could lead millions to starve to death.
I thought this was a place of learned men. Thermal dynamics anyone? Entropy?
Regardless, can't we focus on things that deal with the here and now, can I get a "Jobs, jobs, jobs"?!!
Edit* Beaten
Regardless, can't we focus on things that deal with the here and now, can I get a "Jobs, jobs, jobs"?!!
Edit* Beaten
The freshwater crisis will be soon be solved by advancements in desalination technology. Mainly, ircc due to advancements in nanotechnology.
And we'll be spitting out food via 3d printing technology soon enough. Hopefully before that becomes an issue.
Climate change is unlikely to reduce the overall arable land on the planet.
The problem is that population and countries are built around existing climate, and adjusting to it might be extremely difficult.
I'm not denying climate change or trying to downplay its seriousness, but it does not factor greatly into the planet's overall capacity to generate food.
I think we don't have to worry just yet about the heat death of the universe
I should say - the death of the sun, but my version is funnier (well, it's funnier to me).
speculawyer
Member
I'm not so worried about precious elements . . . we can recycle those and often find substitutes.
Energy is the difficult one. Yeah, the sun provides a lot of energy but it is not easy to capture and use efficiently. I'm a very pro-solar guy, I've put up a roof-top solar system on a previous house, I'm in the process getting one up on the current house . . . but we could not run our society the way we do now only on solar power with current technology.
Oil seems like it will be the first real shortage we will have problems with. (Avatar quote) The price of oil went up 5X since 2000. If it was only going up at the rate of inflation, it would be in the 30's. High demand and weak supply raised the price. We are adjusting and being more efficient . . . but the higher price of oil has definitely slowed our economies.
If we can harness fusion power then this superabundance world could be an issue. As is, it is not something we should worry our pretty little heads about.
CharlieDigital
Banned
I think you're very, very wrong on that. Just look at what the drought this year has done to US corn crops.
Global warming (or a rapid cooling, for that matter, say from a large volcanic event) is about more than just sea levels, but also shifts in weather patterns that results. This could significantly affect the output of our arable land.
You're not confident that Solar Power technology wont become more efficient over the next, say 50 years?
Also, I'm not an expert on nuclear power, but what's stopping us from transitioning fully to nuclear power other than politics and bad press? Do we have enough uranium for it?
How? Huntsman endorsed the Ryan plan. He wants to repeal Obamacare and replace it with some kind of exchange system, but with lots of state implementation leeway. He wants to cut taxes across the board, including for corporations, eliminate the capital gains tax, remove every deduction and credit while cutting taxes, and eliminate the tax a multinational corporation would pay on income earned outside the US. He wants to leave troops in Iraq. He made second-term trimester abortions illegal in Utah and preemptively passed a law that would make abortion completely illegal if Roe v. Wade were overturned -- and obviously he supports a constitutional amendment to do so. If anything, Huntsman is MORE extreme than Romney. The only positions on which he's moderate are climate change and foreign policy (in which he hews essentially to the Obama line, not surprising since both it and he come from the State Department).
I mean, I don't think Huntsman is the worst possible candidate ever, but the fact that everybody thinks he'd be the best choice out of the GOP field is an example of just how terrible the GOP field is.
I'm really not confident that anybody named Bush will be winning national office any time soon -- and the fact that he bowed out of his Senate run in favor of Rubio supports my case, I think.
Well, we keep blowing them up, which is really putting a damper on demand. After Fukushima and the BP spill I'm really inclined towards picking power sources in terms of how many millions of dollars of damage they'd cause if they were mismanaged in the absolute worse possible way. I'm leaning towards solar, I guess.
Nah man.
Run the numbers.
The sun provides shit-ton of energy, seriously, it's only a question of harnessing it more effectively.
There are many technical problems, chief among them is probably our power grid, but they are all solvable.
It's free energy (and at the end of the day, the only source of energy outside nuclear), we will find a way to use it, because we like free stuff.
Climate change can devastate farmland and create short-term catastrophes, no doubt, but in the term of overall global production, our arable land will just move toward the poles.
Aren't most working nuclear reactors based around 30+ year old cold war area technology?
CharlieDigital
Banned
There is no reality where this is true. None.
First of all, the fact that he accepted a position in the administration says a lot given the hyper-partisan environment we are in now. Could you see any other Republican candidate in the field agreeing to an Obama administration appointment?
He openly supported evolution and climate change theories, two positions which are extremely unpopular with the Republican base.
And, while he said he backed the Ryan plan -- I believe this to have been an example of him trying to appeal more to the base, he also called Simpson-Bowles a road map and fully supported its implementation.
It's true that he would have banned gay marriage -- at the state level, but he also fully supported civil unions in one of the most conservative -- if not the most conservative -- states in the US. And, while Obama would never ban gay marriage, let's not forget his position coming into the presidency: civil unions.
He also has adopted children who are non-Mormon and is on record saying that he's spiritual but not religious.
But more generally, I find him to be much more pragmatic and solutions-oriented and would have likely been a center-right POTUS, not too far off from Obama.
In no reality is he more extreme than Romney.
It's become a liberal talking point that Huntsman is really just an extremist in disguise when reality would seem to suggest that he's center-right moderate and a solutions-oriented pragmatist.
speculawyer
Member
I tend to be conservative on estimating technological process unless there is a clear road map.
We've known about solar cells for over a 100 years now. We've improved them quite a bit but progress is slow. Prices have dropped massively in the last 3 years and that is awesome but it is still pretty expensive.
But other than climate change issues from burning too much coal, I don't see much problems in us powering the grid. Between wind, solar, natural gas, coal, nuclear, hydro, geothermal, etc. . . . we have so many different options and technological process is improving each & every one of them.
Transportation fuel is the difficult one. It is just REALLY hard to compete with the energy density of liquid hydrocarbon fuels. Hence my interest in EVs. I think we'll get by OK with a slow transition toward EVs. We are currently moving to hybrids. Plug-in hybrids are next. I'm much less pessimistic now but I do think it oil prices are throttling the economy.
CharlieDigital
Banned
You are making it out to be an all too easy endeavor. Millions of people will perish along the way.
I was making a long term philosophical point about our long term (as in, multi-generational) ability to feed humanity.
In every practical sense, you are right.
speculawyer
Member
Solar power is great when the sun is shining. And the nice thing is that is when we use the most energy. The difficulty is at night and winter (shorter days & sun low on horizon). If you want to survive only with solar power, you need batteries and that significantly raises the cost & complexity.
But fortunately, we don't need to do that. We have so many other sources to complement it. And even if you want to purely use renewables, there is wind, waves, biomass, biogas, geothermal, etc.
speculawyer
Member
It is not so easily interchangeable. As you move toward the poles, things change. You get really short days in the winter and long days in the summer but the sun is low on the horizon.
But here is something to remember . . . every miracle breakthrough just allows us to increase the size of humanity until we hit the next resource limit. And then we may have an even more difficult problem than before since we've made the problem bigger.
Ultimately, cannot rely on technological fixes. The earth is a finite sphere . . . you cannot have infinite growth on a finite sphere. Ultimately, we need to learn how to stop growing. And we are making progress . . . the rate of population growth is slowing a bit.
You're ignoring the very likely prospect of practical immortality. And even if we somehow wont be able transfer our consciousness someday, our lifespans are going to radically increase in a very short timespan. Diseases like Cancer and Heart Disease are not long for this world. The very act of "Ageing" will not be far behind.
Maybe more extreme is, well, too extreme. But the record is that he was a much more conservative governor than Romney, and if he's really as solutions-oriented as you say then he had no business endorsing the Ryan plan. If he'll do that in a primary I find it hard to have much faith that he'll be able to resist the extremist wing of his party, much as I do Romney. Nor do the positions he espoused during the primaries reflect a particularly pragmatic viewpoint -- I simply don't believe that a pragmatist would believe in cutting corporate taxes and eliminating capital gains taxes. Nor do I think believing in climate change makes you a moderate in any sense except the most depressingly Republican.
speculawyer
Member
I don't even . . .
Wow. I did not know Obama had such a voting block. The I'll vote for the Muslim over the rich-guy block.
Or this voter segment:
http://news.yahoo.com/southern-whites-troubled-romneys-wealth-religion-050312040.html
Wow. I did not know Obama had such a voting block. The I'll vote for the Muslim over the rich-guy block.
Or this voter segment:
A "wifer"! Romney . . . show us your marriage certificate(s)! LOL.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
Black Mamba
Member
speculawyer
Member
Yes! And there will also soon be a breakthrough wherein simian aviators are able to achieve heavier than air travel commencing from my colon.
Wealthism. A serious issue.
speculawyer
Member
Bad Lost Voyager thread commencing in 3 . . . 2 . . .
Black Mamba
Member
Ryan somehow turning the Chicago teacher strike into a political game with Obama...
Romney more aggressive:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/...e-stand-rahm-emanuel-211106035--election.html
Romney more aggressive:
eBay Huckster
Member
What makes this all the more aggravating is that their approach to reforming education is rather unambiguously wrong.
Black Mamba
Member
From speculawyer's link (which was an interesting read)
Obama's failure is not explaining Obamacare better. If they would have jumped on it from the start and not let the GOP talking heads control the conversation, I don't think there would be such a big issue about it. Most people like most of it, just don't know it.
Obama's failure is not explaining Obamacare better. If they would have jumped on it from the start and not let the GOP talking heads control the conversation, I don't think there would be such a big issue about it. Most people like most of it, just don't know it.
The big reason the Libertarian party cannot replace the Republican part is that they have minimal disagreement with Democrats on social issues.
You can't have both political parties be primarily socially liberal. Social conservatives will have a party: someone will cater to them.
I disagree. I think Gaborn is right; I think people like most of the provisions, but hate the mandate so much that they're willing to scrap the entire bill to get rid of it.
You can't have both political parties be primarily socially liberal. Social conservatives will have a party: someone will cater to them.
Black Mamba said:
I disagree. I think Gaborn is right; I think people like most of the provisions, but hate the mandate so much that they're willing to scrap the entire bill to get rid of it.
It's hard to explain stuff when the other side is on a total misinformation campaign and they have their own 24/7 network
They hate the mandate because they don't know the real details of it
Black Mamba
Member
maybe, but if they understood why it's necessary and that you aren't forced into it unless you make enough money, then i think they'd change their tune.
I don't disagree here, but that's the battle they should have tried to win. Win that and this election wouldn't even be a contest right now.
- Status