Kurzweil sees PV production being able to meet humanities energy needs in 16 years.

[joshcryer]

Look at this image:



This is PV power production in megawatts. It doubles every 2 years. In 8 doublings we will have enough PV in existence to power the whole of humanity. (See my sig.)

Any objections to this?

Source is here: http://www.ted.com/talks/ray_kurzweil_announces_singularity_university.html

[Xipe Totec]

1. How many acres of land will this many PVs cover? n/t

[joshcryer]

2. Depends on efficiency, check this link out:

http://www.ez2c.de/ml/solar_land_area/

I was really wondering what people thought of this doubling concept. Exponential trends are very hard to spot until after the fact.

[Xipe Totec]

3. According to the link, it would take 170,455 square kilometers in the US.

That would be 65,813 square miles, or roughly the land area of Florida, assuming we cover both land and water surfaces.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0108355.html

[joshcryer]

6. The link assumes no progress in efficiencies.

Particularly efficiencies garnered by using nanotech. It's just to really show that "it's possible." (Indeed, the locations outlined in their map are unrealistic anyway.)

Consider solar shingles on houses, and communities having their own solar fields.

The real question is if the trend can continue. Doubling every 2 years is extraordinary.

[OKIsItJustMe]

24. Why not use the US DoE figures?

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/myths.html#1

…

Myth 1: Solar electricity cannot serve any significant fraction of U.S. or world electricity needs.

PV technology can meet electricity demand on any scale. The solar energy resource in a 100-mile-square area of Nevada could supply the United States with all its electricity (about 800 gigawatts) using modestly efficient (10%) commercial PV modules.

A more realistic scenario involves distributing these same PV systems throughout the 50 states. Currently available sites—such as vacant land, parking lots, and rooftops—could be used. The land requirement to produce 800 gigawatts would average out to be about 17 x 17 miles per state. Alternatively, PV systems built in the "brownfields"—the estimated 5 million acres of abandoned industrial sites in our nation's cities—could supply 90% of America's current electricity.

These hypothetical cases emphasize that PV is not "area-impaired" in delivering electricity. The critical point is that PV does not have to compete with baseload power. Its strength is in providing electricity when and where energy is most limited and most expensive. It does not simply replace some fraction of generation. Rather, it displaces the right portion of the load, shaving peak demand during periods when energy is most constrained and expensive.

In the long run, the U.S. PV Industry Roadmap does expect PV to provide a "significant fraction of U.S. electricity needs." This adds up to at least 15% of new added electricity capacity in 2020, and then 10 years later, at least 10% of the nation's total electricity (http://www.nrel.gov/docs/gen/fy03/30150.pdf">PDF 674 KB). …

Note that if solar panels were 100% efficient (which they are not now, and likely never will be) that 100 mile square would only be a 32 mile square. (That's the absolute minimum required area.)

Solar cells with 14% efficiency are readily available, which would require an 85 mile square in Nevada.

Some cells (not commonly available) can provide upwards of 40% efficiency, which would knock it down to just a 50 mile square.

[GliderGuider]

4. I have serious questions about it

Particularly in the areas of materials availability, fabrication and installation capacity, waste disposal and capacity smoothing technologies. I have difficulty imagining that we can scale all those factors and take care of any unexpected issues and unintended consequences to produce 450 EJ of PV in 16 years.

It's easy to make graphs and do the arithmetic. It's a little harder for me to imagine it happening in real life. But then, maybe that's just a failure of my imagination.

We'll see, won't we?

[joshcryer]

5. Yeah, it is definitely hard to imagine (this is kinda cross posted in the Science forum).

I don't know for sure if the trend can continue because Kurzweil loves his S curves (which kinda skew his longer term trends; except for transistors). But if the trend continues things could change amazingly. Especially if the nanotech he talks of comes on the scene.

However, materials are not too big of a deal, you don't even need to use rare earth elements (indeed, you don't even have to use elements known to pollute, like cadmium, which isn't really used that much anyway).

[GliderGuider]

7. This is a "Liebig's Law" situation.

Growth is limited by the scarcest essential factor. All factors need to be satisfied in order for the growth to proceed.

[joshcryer]

8. Absolutely, but silicon is one of the most abundant elements in the Earths crust.

So too are titanium and aluminum. There are also organic and polymer based ways we can go (turn all of that excess CO2 into solar panels!).

16 years ain't too far off.

[GliderGuider]

9. That's nice, but

It won't matter if we can't build the fabs or dispose of the wastes, or find the funding. Si/Al/Ti is just one part of a very complicated technical, industrial, logistical, economic and cultural endeavour. Don't fixate on the stuff, pay attention to the process.

[joshcryer]

10. Well, that's why I posted this. Clearly the process is happening.

If the doubling continues then we will have quite an interesting go of things. Stopping pollution would of course be a major concern (especially once, if the trend continues, the doubling starts doubling huge numbers as opposed to the oft quoted 'pitiful' numbers our nuclear advocates spout here). But this can be handled by simply not doing business with those who pollute.

But you're the one talking about resources. The raw resources are obviously there, the rest is up to the process that is already taking place and has been observed for over 30 years.

[NNadir]

11. You can't discuss the solar miracle without soothsaying.

Fifty years of similar nonsense has produced this result, some 33 years after Amory Lovins announced that solar energy would be producing 18 Quads of energy "by 2000."

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/renew_energy_consump/table1.html

[joshcryer]

12. I'm afraid you don't understand how exponential trends work.

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 <- linear
2,4,8,16,32,64,128,256 <- exponential

Is solar doubling every two years or not? If accept that it is, you *must* concede that if the trend continues that it will be able to supply all of our needs in 16-20 years.

If you do not think that the trend will continue, I would be happy to hear your reasons why.

http://www.socialfunds.com/news/article.cgi/2639.html

[Terry in Austin]

16. Explanation

It's assertions that require support -- the burden of proof rests with the positive, to put it another way. One good reason for that is that you can't prove a negative.

Here, the assertion is that "the trend will continue." That is the claim that you, on behalf of Kurzweil, are making. It's up to you to make a case in support of the claim; it's not up to somebody else to make a contradictory case.

[joshcryer]

17. I don't know that the trend will continue.

And I am not arguing that it will.

However, the trend did go on for quite some time in the past, there must be some reason it would stop, if one believes it would.

[Terry in Austin]

21. Agreed, right up to the "believes it would stop" part

That implies that there is a contrary case to be made, when in fact the affirmative case has yet to be made.

Don't really want to split hairs here -- it's just that a well-constructed argument is a beautiful thing. I'm hoping that the beauty is not mostly due to rarity!

[joshcryer]

29. I am happy to also listen to arguments as to why it would continue.

I do not understand what your problem is.

[Terry in Austin]

34. Fair enough.

Not particularly a problem, just an interest in some of the formal aspects of logic and explanation (science/philosophy geek). But that's easily another discussion.

I'm also interested in the substantive topic of the S-curve, which went further into down-thread.

[kristopher]

22. Market penetration

note in the prior graph I provided the relationship between market penetration and price. To understand this properly it would need to be divided into subgroups such as commercial, residential, industrial and utility. After estimating the anticipated growth in each of those sectors based on known economic drivers, you would then aggregate the subgroups over a timeline to determine an overall growth estimate.

A basic pattern would be to run three scenarios (slow, medium, fast) to reflect unaccounted for variables, particularly in policy support and technology.

Going with what we know now about the coming energy bill and the economics of the technology in relation to needs, the commercial and utility sectors would see a strong drive to install solar capacity to meet peak demand. Utilities will overlap with residential as the ratepayer's roof space is often the preferred location for siting. As build out in that sector progresses it drives the investment in manufacturing that pulls down the price and affects the rate of adoption in the other sectors.

A future doubling at past rates of growth seems possible, at least for a time. I'd need to look more closely at the issue before saying it was anything more than that. It is more optimistic than most other estimates.

[joshcryer]

75. I didn't see this post until now for some reason. I agree with it.

I think the trend will definitely continue for some time, for 16 years, I have no clue (would be shockingly awesome to me if it could or did).

But there's definite pressure to continue producing PVs for the time being.

[Terry in Austin]

23. More substantively

Getting back to the ideas in this thread (interesting as the rules of debate may be, the ideas themselves are much more so!), it seems that much of it hinges on the use of mathematical functions as explanatory models for observed phenomena. This of course has quite a good track record in science, and the explanations pay off in the form of successful predictions.

It's natural, then, that people "going into the business" of making predictions -- futurists, for example -- would want to draw on these techniques. Well and good, as long as we understand their hazards.

One such is the assumption of continuity. The beauty and predictive power of a well-applied mathematical function lies in our ability to extrapolate along a continuous curve. A certain real-world system is observed to behave in a way that a certain curve describes, but being material and imperfect, the system will usually show a discontinuity at some point in its behavior.

For example, the behavior described by Moore's Law has so far been fairly continuous and in accord with a particular exponential function. We can safely bet, though, that the material world will at some point intrude with its finite, lumpy self and spoil that nice, continuous, ever-upward curve.

[joshcryer]

30. Well, we've been over this, Kurzweil uses S curves to maintain the growth prediction.

He'll talk about vacuum tubes going to transistors. At the point where vacuum tubes fell off, transistors picked up. The growth slowed around then, albeit not by much. He predicts that once we reach Moore's Law limitations we'll simply move on to a 3d substrate.

However, it should be stressed that by the time we hit physical limitations of computation and energy utilization, we will have the computing power to simulate whole universes. Just for perspective here.

[Nederland]

26. I think NNadir

knows exactly how exponential trends work. What he disputes is whether or not the trend will be exponential in the future.

[joshcryer]

28. He doesn't say why.

[Nederland]

36. It's simple

Even if a production trend for a good is exponential for a small time frame, it cannot stay that way for long.

[joshcryer]

37. Can it for 16 years?

I don't know, I'm being completely honest here, I actually do find it hard to conceive. However, there is no raw resource limitation, it's more a limitation of markets and human desire to produce.

Note that the same has been said of Moore's law, and it has shown, with Kurzweill's arguments, that it can indeed continue going, even when we hit the physical limitations of 3D substrates.

I think the doubling will most certainly continue for at least another 4-6 years (due to Peak Oil, renewable energy demands, global warming, and state policies). I simply can't say beyond that.

Put it this way, just because there is a trend doesn't mean I think it will continue unabated. I simply thought it was quite an interesting trend to discuss.

[Nederland]

41. Maybe

And I'm with you, I don't know either.

I would point out that Moore's law is about processor speeds, not the number of processors produced. Given that the efficiency of solar cells has a hard limit (100% efficient), the number of megawatts produced by PV is ultimately a question of production rates.

Big difference.

[joshcryer]

43. His PV stats are about megawatts produced.

His CPU stats are generally about MIPS performance, and multi core CPUs have taken up the slack, so the performance remains "per chip," etc.

[jpak]

86. What a stupid post

:rofl:

[Javaman]

96. par for the course for nnadir. nt

[Terry in Austin]

13. Ray K - truly a visionary for the 20th century

It's the legacy of "heroic industrialism" -- the much-venerated idea that we've got all these wonderful machines, and they will scale up to achieve any given task on any given scale.

Frankly, his talk about "The Singularity" is a little spooky, almost religious. At the very least, extropian.

[joshcryer]

14. I'm not a huge Kurzweil fan and I think he's wrong about the "singulairty."

But his exponential growth trends have been *the most accurate futurist predictions ever made*.

Albert Bartlett talks about exponential trends (only in the opposite direction; as it relates to consumption): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY

I see Kurzweil as simply observing the *same exact trend* and forming completely opposite conclusions.

[GliderGuider]

15. I heard a transhumanist speak at a conference a few years ago.

It wasn't "almost" religious at all. It was completely and utterly religious. Which is not the same as saying something like that can't happen, just that the movement is a religious faith. Extropianism and even classical humanism are simply salvationism dressed in different robes.

[joshcryer]

18. Oh, so is collapism, etc.

I went over this in that one Rapture post I made.

I got snarky responses when I put Extropianism/Transhumanism into the same category as organized religion or overt spiritualism: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x184432

[GliderGuider]

19. Absolutely.

Ray Kurzweil is as much of a shaman as Pope Benedict. No offense meant to actual shamans, who I hold in much higher regard than either of those two inglorious monuments to protoplasmic fear.

[joshcryer]

20. Either way I'd trust neither Ray, the Pope, or an arbitrary shaman with my health.

[Nederland]

25. The Transhumanist narrative is powerful

We will see the concrete results predicted by it within our lifetimes. The changes that will occur as a result of AI are mind boggling, so much so it is almost impossible to fall into hyperbole when discussing it. The difference between this narrative and religion though, is that transhumanism has made concrete predictions based upon easily verifiable trends. Unlike vague prophecies of religion, the firm timelines put forth will be revealed as true or false in a matter of a decade or two. It is an exciting time to be alive, IMHO :)

[GliderGuider]

27. The Oneness Movement narrative is powerful

We will see the concrete results predicted by it within our lifetimes. The changes that will occur as a result of Deeksha are mind boggling, so much so it is almost impossible to fall into hyperbole when discussing it. The difference between this narrative and religion though, is that the Oneness Movement has made concrete predictions based upon easily verifiable trends. Unlike vague prophecies of religion, the firm timelines put forth will be revealed as true or false in a matter of a decade or two. It is an exciting time to be alive, IMHO :)

Just to clarify. I'm not mocking your beliefs at all. I just want to point out that others see very different paths to exactly the same degree of transformation that you do. The Transhumanist breakthrough may very well happen. So might the Oneness transformation. The problem is that they come from diametrically opposed world views, such that those who believe in the assumptions of Transhumanism will not be able to accept the validity of Oneness, and vice versa. When that happens, the temptation to make the other view wrong is overwhelming. We can avoid feeling that temptation by remembering that there is no Truth, just your truth and my truth, his truth and her truth.

The most accurate thing we can say is that something is going to happen, and a lot of people are starting to think that whatever it is, it's going to be really, really big. It is in truth an exciting time to be alive.

[joshcryer]

32. I don't see a concrete timeline for the "Oneness Movement"...

Therefore it is a prime candidate for some sort of post-transhuman religious movement.

[Nederland]

39. No comparision

the Oneness Movement has made concrete predictions based upon easily verifiable trends.

Nice try, but that is not remotely true. What trends do you refer to? Are they observable? Are they debateable?

The Transhumanist movement, more specifically the Singularity Movement is based upon objective truths: CPU Instructions Per Second, Maximum Bandwidth rates, Storage Capacities. These are not debatable numbers, they are observable facts and the trendline of these numbers is indisputable. If, for example, processor speeds suddenly stop improving at the Moore's law rate, Kurzweil will be forced to admit he was wrong--his own metaphysics will demand it.

That is the difference between the Transhumanist movement and religious movements. The Transhumanist movement is based upon science, which has a defined process for theories and ideas being proved wrong. Religions have no such defined process because the idea of being wrong is unthinkable.

[joshcryer]

40. Hey, did you see my comment about Albert Bartlett's analysis?

It was posted up thread: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY

I think I have decided now that Kurzweil sees the same exact trends and forms an opposite conclusion. Bartlett thinks it means we're doomed (in a word), Kurzweil think it means we're heading toward, well, transcendence.

[GliderGuider]

42. As I said above

The problem is that they come from diametrically opposed world views, such that those who believe in the assumptions of Transhumanism will not be able to accept the validity of Oneness, and vice versa. When that happens, the temptation to make the other view wrong is overwhelming.

[Nederland]

44. Completely agree

The two come from diametrically opposed world views.

One maintains that decisions should be made based upon vague unverifiable concepts and mystical dogmas.

The other maintains that decisions should be made upon facts and verifiable empirical data.

They are completely different world views.

[GliderGuider]

45. Do you understand that someone who doesn't share your assumptions

– the assumptions that empiricism, materialism and reductionism are valuable tools for manipulating the physical universe (or even that the manipulation of the physical universe is the most important activity of mankind) – might arrive at a different value proposition from yours? Do you understand that their value proposition is no more or less intrinsically valuable than your own?

[joshcryer]

46. But, which is more convincing?

:D :P ;)

[GliderGuider]

47. To whom?

Your assumptions convince you and people like you, theirs convince them and people like them. It's largely a circular argument.

[joshcryer]

48. Nah, it requires indoctrination for people to believe the unverifiable.

It takes instruction for people to believe the verifiable. Huge distinction.

[GliderGuider]

49. So you believe you have not been indoctrinated?

And they have? You have been "instructed" and they haven't? Your mere choice of words betrays you.

On edit: Do you feel there is any aspect of life for which their perspective might be more valuable than your own?

[joshcryer]

50. How so?

Instruction is a passive process.

"If you plant these seeds in soil, and water them, and give them sunlight, they will grow into plants. Try it out!"

Indoctrination is active.

"Mother Gaia is the Earth, the seeds, and the air and water. She will grow plants for you if you give reverence to her!"

In the former situation, I can see for myself, and learn from the process. In the latter situation I am not getting information I can test, and indeed, I may not even learn anything about the nature of my reality from it.

[GliderGuider]

51. Instruction is not passive.

It requires action on the part of both the instructor and the student. You're contrasting the externalized expressions of the scientific method with the internalized paradigm of philosophical inquiry. Your value system places more importance on external expression than internal realization. Theirs is the reverse.

As I asked above just a moment too late, do you feel there is any aspect of life for which their perspective might be more valuable than your own?

[joshcryer]

66. Nah, it doesn't, it's an objectively defined behavior.

The current instructive methodology is indoctrination (sending kids off to school when they're 6 until they turn 22, to learn about various concepts which they aren't allowed to discover for themselves, etc).

Instruction doesn't need to be indoctrinative, it merely needs to be available to those who want to learn. It's passive. There's no need for someone to tell me how to do something, indeed, I was home schooled, and we had to deal with Christian Light Education pamphlets. Even as a child I rejected the "instruction" that I was receiving, because it felt wrong. Biblical texts were heavily used, creationism was heavily taught. I wound up learning what I know by reading secular books from the library. Indeed, when I learned about evolution I was kinda shocked, because I was taught that Adam and Eve were the beginning of human society and that the Earth was some 5k years old. Here was some data that I could test, and indeed, that I'd been testing for quite some time (we would artificially select roosters for our hen house and this was a similar process to evolution; I didn't know it until I got Cosmos from the library VHS selection!).

Your position to me basically says, "there is no difference between instruction and indoctrination, it depends on how you look at it." However, I see it as quantifiable.

Instruction doesn't even need an active participant, indeed, I could read both scientific and metaphysical data from a library book, but the scientific data will be able to be parsed and quantified by me, I can make the same observations that the scientific data has made. I cannot make the same observations that is discussed in metaphysical texts, because it is subjective.

There is plenty of value in subjective metaphysics, at the bare minimum it can be argued to get people thinking. But in the end as far as a useful contribution to my existence (that is, my living, breathing, thriving being), it gives very little. The knowledge that the Earth is 5k years old, and that humans came from Adam and Eve does not help me understand my world as it really is.

[Terry in Austin]

52. Verification is culturally defined

"To verify" essentially means "to deem something true." All cultural value systems set criteria as to what shall be considered "true" and what shall not. Our culture happens to favor empirical/materialistic criteria.

Not that there's anything wrong with that. It has its place, and certainly has its successes -- it gets a lot more cars on the road and TVs on the wall.

"Believe the verifiable" is indeed the key here, because it's two words for the same thing. We verify according to our beliefs. There's no way to establish absolutely that one set of beliefs is "better" or "truer" than another.

Secret: the universe is completely crazy, and there is no umpire. Pass it on.

:hi:

[Nederland]

54. Disagree

There's no way to establish absolutely that one set of beliefs is "better" or "truer" than another.

Yes there is, to an extent. Although it is not possible to establish that a single belief is better or truer than another, it is perfectly possible to show that a set of beliefs is logically inconsistent with one another. Objectively speaking, a set of beliefs that is internally consistent is preferable to one that is not.

[Terry in Austin]

55. Your beliefs

You happen to believe that logical consistency is a criterion for establishing "truth." You believe that there is such a thing as "objectively speaking" that somehow establishes truth. Those are your beliefs, and that's fine. FWIW, I share a lot of the beliefs about empirical investigation. Those are my beliefs, but beliefs nevertheless.

I think you get to the heart of it, though, when you say "is preferable." In the end, it's what you prefer, i.e., that which is most in accord with your beliefs.

Again, there's no cosmic umpire here, and claiming to be one or speak for one is not an effort that promises much success.

[Nederland]

56. Disagree

Logical consistency is a criterion for establishing truth. No culture on the planet thinks otherwise. I challenge you to provide an example that shows otherwise.

[GliderGuider]

57. Two systems can both be logically (internally) consistent, but different.

This is an everyday consideration in mathematics. Two systems may have no point of contact at all, but both wmay be internally consistent, closed ("true") systems. It is impossible to establish one as "true" and the other as "not true". Each is true within its own universe. The only thing you can say is that they are different.

Culturally speaking, of course, all humans are now part of a globalized system to at least some extent. What we can say is that some cultural assumptions (such as empiricism and reductionism) work very well in some circumstances, while others (like subjectivism and holism) work better in other circumstances, but they may not both work equally well in all situations. I wouldn't expect meditation to provide better Internet traffic grooming algorithms, and I wouldn't expect a deep knowledge of packet switching to produce inner peace. The best results come from blending both sets of assumptions within their effective domains.

For example, if an engineer has a meditation practice and does inner work they may become calmer and more insightful. In this state they may be better able to use their engineering design tools, and as a result might produce better products. Is one framework (meditation vs. engineering school) intrinsically better, more truthful or valid? Not really. Even in our everyday lives we may sometimes prefer peace and a sense of oneness with the universe, while other situations might call for a bigger flat-screen TV.

Fortunately in this world we can have both, and even the synergy between them, so long as we're careful not to insist that one is right and the other wrong in some overarching sense. Insisting on one set of assumptions over another even in situations where it doesn't apply is a sure sign that one has been culturally conditioned. Expecting a a new gadget to bring inner peace and happiness is as mistaken as expecting meditation to provide new chemical formulas. The two domains, while complementary, are orthogonal.

[Nederland]

62. Response

What we can say is that some cultural assumptions (such as empiricism and reductionism) work very well in some circumstances, while others (like subjectivism and holism) work better in other circumstances, but they may not both work equally well in all situations.

No, you can't say that without conceding the point.

You cannot say that one set of cultural assumptions work "better" than another set in some circumstances without conceding 1) that there is a universal set of values and 2) there is an objective methodology by which two sets of assumptions can be compared.

[Terry in Austin]

61. Italics won't carry it

> Logical consistency is a criterion for establishing truth.

Insisting that this is true doesn't do much besides establishing that you hold firmly to your belief about it. A very culturally-specific one about a particular kind of logic, at that. Heck, there are many, many different logics, each with a purpose suited to it. I hope you're not implying that there is only one true Logic, and all the rest are false. That'd be downright Biblical, wouldn't it?

Look, you don't have to establish some kind of mighty source of objective truth from on high to justify having your beliefs or sharing your views. It's not necessary to go to the mountain and fetch tablets of stone in order to be taken seriously.

All we have is our beliefs. And our brains to make a persuasive case, hopefully, when we see something that we believe works a certain way enough of the time to consider it a pretty good bet.

Trying to invoke some kind of umpire like "objective truth" -- or Jehovah or Moloch, for that matter -- is ultimately irrelevant. Fact is, it's usually used as a kind of rhetorical cudgel to bully people into agreement, when other means of argument or persuasion or narrative are much more relevant -- and much more likely to gain agreement.

That's what it comes down to -- how many people will agree how strongly with a given proposition. For example, in your own post, you rely on agreement from, essentially, every culture on the planet in support of your proposition.

BTW, you've made an extraordinary anthropological claim. You sure you want to go there?

[Nederland]

63. Yup

BTW, you've made an extraordinary anthropological claim. You sure you want to go there?

Yup, and I'm still waiting.

[Terry in Austin]

65. Heck, you're making it easy. And diversionary, but we'll get to that

Your claim: no culture on the planet thinks otherwise than that logical consistency is a criterion for establishing truth.
A fair restatement of your claim, resolving the negatives: every culture on the planet thinks that logical consistency is a criterion for establishing truth.

Formally, it's up to you to substantiate the claim. You would need to provide an example of such a teaching or other evidence of this belief from each of the world's two-hundred-plus cultures. You've got some mighty extensive field work ahead of you!

Informally, and in the spirit of your claim, I can give you an example of a culture that does not propagate the belief that logical consistency is a criterion for establishing truth.

Yir-Yoront, Queensland, Australia.

Again, this is informal, in the spirit of your question. Strictly speaking, I would be attempting to prove a negative, which is fallacious (absence of evidence <> evidence of absence). But the stone tablets of western/rational tradition say that the burden of proof is on the positive -- you've still got it to do, pal. Chop logic at your own risk.

Now, back to that thing where you keep insisting that there's some kind of "objective truth" that we must all accept, just because it's scientific and rational and modern and empirical and all that. Your interpretation of it, anyway. Heck, you're not the only one who knows scientific method, but one thing it's definitely not is a religion.

Wouldn't it be more effective -- not to mention engaging -- if you just made a case based on whatever shared premises you could identify, rather than try to grope for some godlike "irrefutable" entity out there that you can swing at us like some kind of rhetorical club? Come off it, already. You might even like it.

[Nederland]

69. Too easily disproven

I mean really, you could have made it a little harder. I confess that before now I had never heard of the Yir Yoront, so I thank you for introducing me to something new. I did a quick google search and read a couple articles. The very first thing I found was this:

http://www.everyculture.com/Oceania/Yir-Yoront.html

Traditional Yir Yoront society was divided into patrilineal, totemic clans and two exogamous moieties. A distinction was also made, apart from kinship organization, between "coastal people" and "inland people." The nuclear family was the basic residential and economic unit. Traditionally, social relations were based on superordinate and subordinate status, with men dominant over women and older people dominant over younger people. Leadership rested with the clan leaders. While individuals displaying superior knowledge or skill might enjoy personal prestige, there was no formai status system. The day-to-day world of the Yir Yoront was seen by them as a reflection of the world of their ancestors, with all new developments accounted for by myths and totems. With the recent acceleration of acculturation into White Australian society, many traditional beliefs and practices have disappeared and have been replaced by involvement in the cash economy and more permanent settlement near cattle ranches and small towns.

Obviously this is a culture with rules and traditions. Rules and traditions cannot be sustained without applying logic. The application of logic implies that logical consistency is important to them.

QED.

[kristopher]

70. I'm just butting in briefly here

There is an argument to be made that these seemingly opposed paradigms are different not so much in their functionality but in the constraints they operate under to fulfill that functionality.

The background for this is a very long discussion about different schools of thought in cultural anthropology but in one view about the nature of culture (the one I favor) it is usually fairly easy to unravel the functional role of different cultural constructs. In the particular discussion underway, the main issues I see relate to population density and how behavior is affected to achieve "culturally desirable" outcomes. Fishing and hunting grounds need to be protected; that can be managed by mythologizing the goal in a certain set of conditions, but increase population density by a large multiple and it requires empirical justification to accomplish the same goal of 'preservation'. In slightly more detail the analytic method is required because we will have to divide the objective of producing food from the reasons for preservation.

That isn't very in-depth but I think it illustrates the basic point that functionality is a universal binding agent for differing cultural perspectives.

I'm not saying that perfect efficiency is achieved BTW. Left over traditions and traditions trying to be born are both examples of strong confounding factors.

[GliderGuider]

71. Imagine that.

This is twice in the last couple of weeks I've agreed with you completely.

On your comment about empirical justification, what is that justification needed to justify, in your opinion? Some form of compliance enforcement? (I'm trying to think of as word that means the same as coercion, but doesn't have as much emotional baggage -- i.e. things like regulations and indoctrination.) Or something else?

[kristopher]

72. Maybe I should say either

stricter justification or justification based on harder to gather data. Both would be related to the increased complexity of the problem. In one case you have local observations that develop into traditions because they work (eg "only fish this spot when the moon is waning between full and 3/4" might be a second order observation of a critical species breeding behavior). Our cultural constructs are in line with but somewhat more effective at aligning our species with the forces facing it than hit and miss natural selection. Adding the scientific method is akin (IMO) to putting the process on steroids - which would represent the second case.

[GliderGuider]

73. It sounds like you're thinking in terms of

the observations/justifications facilitating an organic adoption of new behaviors rather than as an underpinning for new regulation? Or would it be a combination of both? To me the latter (the combined approach) feels more likely, though I've come to think that we have drastically underestimated both the power and probability of organic behavior changes.

[kristopher]

74. Isn't a taboo a form of regulation?

It is just a matter of complexity. Taboos work best when there are enough people believing it to enforce the taboo. Once complexity makes that type of prohibition ineffective, then the goal fails to be achieved or a different regulatory mechanism is developed/found/created/planned...

[GliderGuider]

78. Taboos work because they're internally enforced

Legal regulations don't depend on people accepting the underlying principle (look at drug laws). However, that's really only a second-order phenomenon. Underlying our legal system is a taboo against challenging the legal system itself. That taboo allows us to accept the legitimacy of regulations we may not individually accept.

So rather than being opposed, it looks to me as though taboos and regulations are just different points on the spectrum of social norming.

No matter what the mechanism is, as long as people do what they're supposed to rather than what they want, the Empire will stand. (Sorry, that's my inner anarchist child sneaking out to play.)

[Terry in Austin]

84. Nice try

Obviously this is a culture with rules and traditions. Rules and traditions cannot be sustained without applying logic. ...QED

Nice try, but "QED" doesn't carry it, either. Your inference is flawed by an ethnocentric concept of "logic."

But anthropology is indeed a rich field of study. It's even worth a quick google search. Glad I could introduce you to it.

[Nederland]

85. Of course it is

When I made the statement I did I was using words defined by the culture I grew up in. What did you expect, that I use a concept of "logic" that means something other than what I think it does? That's ridiculous.

[joshcryer]

88. Definition tweaking is a common tactic.

For instance, many would have to agree that a tribal person was utilizing a scientific method or logic when they put together a moccasin. But they wouldn't like agreeing to it!

[joshcryer]

67. The discussion centers around whether or not objective truths are better than subjective narrative.

Objective truths can be used and observed by anyone.

"The sun will rise tomorrow."

Subjective narratives are not observable, and indeed, cannot be tested.

"The sun rises because we are daughters of mother Earth."

Truth, therefore, can be seen two ways. "That which society deems true because society says it's true," or "that which society deems true because everyone can verify similar or the same conclusions."

Now while emphasis is being placed on value truths that may not be verified by others, yet rest on those producing the narrative, the difference can be established, and they are not on equal playing grounds. One believes individuals themselves can form their own conclusions themselves, the other believes that conclusions can only be formed by cultural influences.

The only solution, as I see it, is to appreciate both systems, and place somewhat more value on that system which cannot be corrupted by culture.

[Odin2005]

92. Post-Modernist Relativist nonsense

[Nederland]

53. Yes and yes

I have no doubt that people with different assumptions will arrive at a different value proposition from yours, and I don't believe that their value proposition is no more or less intrinsically valuable than your own.

However, there is an interesting observation to be made regarding these two types of societies. History has shown irrefutably that societies that embrace the assumptions of scientific method and the ideas of empiricism, materialism and reductionism end up more technologically advanced than those that do not. By "technologically advanced", I mean that those societies come up with theories and ideas that yield practical, concrete inventions that human beings of all cultural narratives find attractive. The reason for this is that regardless of narrative, there are values that are universal or near universal. For example, all societies that I am aware of value the lives of their children. Given this, and ignoring the effect of deliberate misinformation campaigns, it naturally follows that all societies will value vaccines.

The end result of these facts is inevitable hypocrisy. Societies (and individuals) that claim to eschew or even attack the western idea of ideas of empiricism, materialism and reductionism willingly consume with vigor the end result of such ideas. What then can we objectively conclude? Is hypocrisy something that some narratives value? I don't think so...

[Terry in Austin]

64. You're full of them today, aren't you?

Extraordinary anthropological claims, that is. ;)

concrete inventions that human beings of all cultural narratives find attractive.

Man, you've got your work cut out for you backing that one up!

I'm beginning to think your background in anthropology can't be overly deep if you can wave around assertions as sweeping as this. We won't even go into the ethnocentric part -- superiority of scientific method and reductionism, etc.

History has shown irrefutably that societies that embrace the assumptions of scientific method...

On the subject of history, I have two questions for you.

• Major question: whose history?
• Minor question: what are you calling "irrefutable?"

[Nederland]

76. Not really

Man, you've got your work cut out for you backing that one up!

Not really, it's actually extraordinarily easy to back up.

Food. Clothing. Shelter.

These are basic needs that all humans want based upon their common biology independent of culture. It is an objective fact that Western culture produces these things more efficiently than other cultures do. Western culture can do this because of its inventions, making those things "concrete inventions that human beings of all cultural narratives find attractive."


QED

[joshcryer]

77. I think you're going about this the wrong way.

I mean, what is going to be pointed out to you is that the vast majority of human society lives in abject poverty, and that indeed, things aren't better off for *them*, etc. That most of Western civilizations products are in fact produced by people on the lowest tier of society, etc.

[Nederland]

79. Response

Even if the majority of human society lives in abject poverty, a smaller percentage of them live in abject poverty than ever before in history. And how did that happen? Hint: it's NOT because of Buddhism, meditation, the Oneness Movement or any of the other claptrap that came out of the east.

[joshcryer]

80. *nod*

And, of course, the statistics show that poverty is becoming a different concept these days: http://www.gapminder.com

[Nederland]

81. A good point

I think you and I basically agree on this stuff. I have to wonder about those who don't. I mean, we are having a debate about the strengths and weakness of Western culture on an Internet forum.

Do they not see the irony?

[joshcryer]

83. It's not necessarily ironic.

I mean I can be an anti-capitalist and still spend money, etc. But it is unfortunate that so many people buy in to these alternate theories, in part due to their reluctance to experience life. I mean, we can look at every useful invention that exists, every single one, and see a touch of the process that Western Philosophy utilizes. The observable, the reproducible, the useful, practical. Only by experiencing the world around you can you come to recognize these things.

Take UrbanScout for instance. Here's someone who talks about, in videos, say, collecting acorns for consumption (he never shows us how to prepare them, from what I remember), and how the Indians were all virtuous and all that. Then he returns to his nice apartment in his nice car with air conditioning, with his HD video camera, and Mac computer. Now there's nothing inherently ironic or hypocritical about this *behavior*, but the externalized *values* he *expresses* are in contradiction to his *objectively* expressed values. He does value that car, else he wouldn't use it. He does value that apartment with air conditioning, else he wouldn't use it. He does value the HD video camera else, well, you see where this is going. Therefore there should at least be *some* consideration for the values of *other* people, who might, just might, place similar values on similar things, while also not externalizing those values. Nothing wrong with failing to recognize the things you value, but there is something wrong with condemning the value of others.

[kristopher]

82. I would love to argue that statement with you some other time...

No mountain consists only of the peak.

[joshcryer]

31. Concrete timelines are one huge and notable distinction by the transhumanists.

I mean, there are plenty of apocalypse movements who do throw out timelines (2012 is the most recent favorite), but often they have a catch here or there. The movie "Nostradamus: 2012" ends with one of the younger writers saying that he doesn't think some big event will happen exactly on that date, but that it will be seen in retrospect as some sort of pivotal moment. This gives him a 5 year plus or minus window of opportunity to spread misinformation and delude people into buying his books.

I don't know that PV production will continue doubling, however, I am unconvinced by this thread that it won't or can't. We'll have to just keep watching the numbers.

[GliderGuider]

33. In Nederland's comment above

He gave it a window of "a decade or two". That's 15 years +/- 5 years. "This gives him a 5 year plus or minus window of opportunity to spread misinformation and delude people into buying his books."

Firm timelines are a trap. Look how well they worked out for Paul Ehrlich and Colin Campbell. The Oneness Movement claims we need 64,000 enlightened ones to trigger the shift (though goddess knows how they arrived at that number). I think Ramana Maharshi said something similar. At the rate people are waking up today, we should be able to satisfy that criterion within 10 years, and then we'll see if it makes a difference. Same for Transhumanism.

I could also make the point that the concept of timelines is a very Western idea. Linear time and predictability are some of those assumptions I said earlier make it impossible to bridge the gulf between the two paradigms.

Let's just keep watching the world and see what happens. I wouldn't count the Eastern worldview out just yet, though.

[joshcryer]

35. Few believed that Moore's law could continue as long as it did.

It was seen as fantasy. The death of Moore's law has been called on for years, but the Kurzweilliean predictions (from The Age of Spiritual Machines) were on track almost sickeningly. Even with the recessions. He predicted ARPANET would become a worldwide network in short order. The dot com bust did not hurt the exponential growth of the internet (yet it was claimed to be the death knell). Kurzweil isn't always right, of course. He was wrong about VR being around by 2005. He still predicts it will happen by 2010, but I believe he is still wrong, because the console generation hasn't jumped yet. 2015 is more likely (unless some genius comes up with some consumer product before then and it actually takes off).

Nederland's comment is on track with Kurzweil's prediction (2020-2030). When you consider that the prediction was made almost 20 years ago, it's arguably the longest lasting prediction ever made by a futurist. Once you have AI then everything changes. I am against the singularity for this reason, because I do not think our culture will foster AIs that are benevolent or desirable. I believe we must first become a culture that respects all individuals equally before bringing AIs into existence which could just consider us irrelevant and wipe us out.

[joshcryer]

38. This discussion got me reading the Singularity Institute website and...

...I had to laugh when, as I was watching a fairly informative video about end of world probability scenarios, the speaker (Eliezer Yudkowsky, who I used to correspond with, back when he was scrawny and disheveled) ended his presentation with "buy my book."

Seriously. Hehe. :)

[ironrooster]

59. If I see the Kurzweil on the road I will kill him

[GliderGuider]

68. "I knew the Buddha. The Buddha was a friend of mine. Ray Kurzweil is no Buddha..." /nt

[Odin2005]

90. So I'm a religious nut according to you luddites? LOL!

Ludditism and dogmatic techno-phobia is the religion.

[Terry in Austin]

87. Whew! Did this go just about everywhere, or what!

How 'bout it, guys -- we jawed this one up pretty good, eh?
Big round of applause for everybody, c'mon!

:applause: :applause:

(We'll be here all week -- be sure to tip your waitress and bartenders!)

[excess_3]

58. what happens at night? .nt

[Dead_Parrot]

60. Moonlight.

no srsly, there's up to 1,000mW/m² in moonlight. Sure, it might not sound like much, but apparently a mere 30mW/m² is enough to melt the icecaps: Imagine what you could do with a whole 1,000 mW all beaming onto your house at night! Shit, it's a wonder we can go out in it without dark glasses and big hat.

[Odin2005]

89. I posted this in Science a week ago.

Kurzweil is rarely wrong, too bad for his luddite detractors.

[joshcryer]

91. Yeah, Odin2005, sorry for not mentioning it to you.

A lot of Luddite type comments are filling the middle of the thread. I'm unconvinced that the trend won't continue (but they're arguing philosophical and anthropological stuff, so can't say that they're saying it won't).

I think Kurzweil is wrong when it comes to predicting consumer uptake (I've been waiting for VR for 10 years; it will come, it's just dang hard to predict when a good implementation will come), but he's always been right when a given consumer good is already being produced (so once a good VR tech comes around, it will grow exponentially).

Tim Sweeney thinks that "perfectly realistic" visuals are only 10-15 years away. Kurzweil would be better off predicting VR around that time frame rather than just guessing: http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/58771

[Odin2005]

93. Not so much luddite is it is post-modernist "there is no objective truth" BS.

I think the Transhumanists (I consider my self one) are an excellent antidote to the defeatist, anti-technology, "man is evil" ideologies of many so-called "Greens".

[joshcryer]

94. I agree, and I think transhumanism (properly approached) is highly ecological.

After all, we'd be moving on to orbitals, other stars, large hiveminds, whatever. Let the next evolutionary phase happen for all we care. We can leave! :)

[Odin2005]

95. The faster we get mining asteroids the faster we can stop screwing up things in Earth!

Among other things.