He speaks so cavalierly about capitalism and its shortsightedness and pointlessness. Capitalism is just a word we use to describe the nexus of supply and demand and how those forces channel human time, energy, and mindshare, out of self-interest, to address them. It's very plausible that the removal of atmospheric carbon will become the focus of enormous demand, and we will see the world's smartest and most resourceful people connect with the world's richest stores of financing and the most cutting-edge technology to foster new pathways to address that problem in ways we can't possibly imagine right now. Human nature is not a blank slate. And capitalism is the most direct way to harness it. That's why capitalism is what happens in free societies when there is no top-down management regime controlling choice by force. By the same token, any notion of an alternative to free people acting out of self interest has to confront this hurdle--of somehow creating a game-theory landscape that effectively redirects human behavior and doesn't fall apart in subsequent iterations beyond the initial compulsion. People are going to be people. Any system (political, economic, etc) will fail if it is predicated on ignoring this or presupposing some other assumption about how people will interact with the world in their daily lives. Capitalism has many faults. But it "fits" with how we are built. And, as noted above, if we are going to solve the climate change issue, it's far more likely we will solve it with capitalism than by force-fitting ourselves into some unnatural mold that has the side effect of suppressing the power of market forces that would otherwise end up targeting systemic solutions through new technological breakthroughs motivated by self interest in a market-based context. 10 years from now, quantum computers working at 43 million times the power of our current supercomputers will be driving AI superintelligence folding synthetic protien-based microorganisms that eat atmospheric carbon and shit out rainforests. At a healthy profit.
You dabble a lot on technofuturism (I hope that's the correct term). Technology has the potential to change people's lives but we're in the present, one which the IPCC report (the second one or the third one I recall which one it was) stated that carbon removal tech is not efficient to deal with our changing climate.
Here we go with human nature arguments. What is this "human nature" you talk of? What proofs do you possess that shows that human nature is not a blank slate? If greed is part of human nature what, then, is the explanation for the existence of charities? How is capitalism the most direct way of harnessing it?
8:55 Well, no, those global warming street talks are not common everywhere. And as far as my experience goes, they are rather rare in all three countries I've lived, in Europe and Asia.
This is a long messy Gish Gallup. All of this weakly constructed word salad is not necessary to underpin a the need for healthy and ethical relationship with our environment. We can reason that the external costs from many of our modern practices must be addressed and fixed through the use of naturalism alone.
@@ethanbills1008 Nature does exist as the observed objects in the world which follow knowable laws and rules. These rules can be discovered through physics and the natural sciences. And can be used to predict many events in the natural world once the initial state of matter is understood. Such as position, and energy state of constituent atomic particles.
@@biocykle this lecture is one mostly false statement after another with no time between dubious claims for someone who really does know the subject matter to properly dispute.
TL;DR? Came looking for a song but clicked this by curiosity.
Can anyone give me the name of the musician he played? I tried to Google them by the name he seemed to be saying but must be spelling it wrong.
Hi, he played a piece by La Monte Young
Brilliant
Thanks for putting this up!
Thanks for putting up with this!
This is the philosophy of liminal space.
wow
He speaks so cavalierly about capitalism and its shortsightedness and pointlessness.
Capitalism is just a word we use to describe the nexus of supply and demand and how those forces channel human time, energy, and mindshare, out of self-interest, to address them.
It's very plausible that the removal of atmospheric carbon will become the focus of enormous demand, and we will see the world's smartest and most resourceful people connect with the world's richest stores of financing and the most cutting-edge technology to foster new pathways to address that problem in ways we can't possibly imagine right now.
Human nature is not a blank slate. And capitalism is the most direct way to harness it. That's why capitalism is what happens in free societies when there is no top-down management regime controlling choice by force. By the same token, any notion of an alternative to free people acting out of self interest has to confront this hurdle--of somehow creating a game-theory landscape that effectively redirects human behavior and doesn't fall apart in subsequent iterations beyond the initial compulsion.
People are going to be people. Any system (political, economic, etc) will fail if it is predicated on ignoring this or presupposing some other assumption about how people will interact with the world in their daily lives.
Capitalism has many faults. But it "fits" with how we are built.
And, as noted above, if we are going to solve the climate change issue, it's far more likely we will solve it with capitalism than by force-fitting ourselves into some unnatural mold that has the side effect of suppressing the power of market forces that would otherwise end up targeting systemic solutions through new technological breakthroughs motivated by self interest in a market-based context.
10 years from now, quantum computers working at 43 million times the power of our current supercomputers will be driving AI superintelligence folding synthetic protien-based microorganisms that eat atmospheric carbon and shit out rainforests. At a healthy profit.
One word : hybris
Agreed@@withnail-and-i
First things first: you should really read/listen to Vivek Chibber's 'Understanding Capitalism' series.
You truly need it.
You dabble a lot on technofuturism (I hope that's the correct term).
Technology has the potential to change people's lives but we're in the present, one which the IPCC report (the second one or the third one I recall which one it was) stated that carbon removal tech is not efficient to deal with our changing climate.
Here we go with human nature arguments. What is this "human nature" you talk of?
What proofs do you possess that shows that human nature is not a blank slate?
If greed is part of human nature what, then, is the explanation for the existence of charities?
How is capitalism the most direct way of harnessing it?
8:55 Well, no, those global warming street talks are not common everywhere. And as far as my experience goes, they are rather rare in all three countries I've lived, in Europe and Asia.
It will become. Anyway it is used as an example to clarify that foreground and background distinction will dissolve.
THE TECHNIUM is a living Being.......... He"s 👉🏼suigeneris👈🏿...we are♿ without✂️📐
This is a long messy Gish Gallup. All of this weakly constructed word salad is not necessary to underpin a the need for healthy and ethical relationship with our environment. We can reason that the external costs from many of our modern practices must be addressed and fixed through the use of naturalism alone.
Lol. Naturalism is what’s responsible for global warming in the first place
Naturalism assumes the existence of some entity-nature that doesn’t have any actual existence.
@@ethanbills1008 Nature does exist as the observed objects in the world which follow knowable laws and rules. These rules can be discovered through physics and the natural sciences. And can be used to predict many events in the natural world once the initial state of matter is understood. Such as position, and energy state of constituent atomic particles.
If this was "word salad" to you, I don't think you were really listening to the lecture.
@@biocykle this lecture is one mostly false statement after another with no time between dubious claims for someone who really does know the subject matter to properly dispute.