PANEL: Superabundant Energy | Alex Epstein, Marian Tupy, Amanda Stoker
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 21 ต.ค. 2024
- In this session, Alex Epstein and Marian Tupy discuss the concept of human stewardship of environmental resources. They address the question of whether good stewardship is compatible with abundance and human flourishing. Marian argues that the world is infinitely abundant, as evidenced by the fact that resources have become 98% cheaper since 1850, and that technology and innovation will continue to make resources more abundant. Alex challenges the assumption that the Earth is fragile and argues that humans are producer-improvers who add massive value to the Earth. He suggests that our environmental goal should be to advance human flourishing on Earth, not eliminate human impact.
READ: If you’d like to go deeper into the ideas in this video, read Marian Tupy's ARC Research Paper - "Superabundance Unbound" : www.arcforum.c...
The Hon Amanda Stoker is a columnist for the Australian Financial Review, host of the Sunday with Stoker program on Sky News Australia, and a fellow of the Menzies Research Centre. Previously, she was a Liberal National Party Senator for Queensland and served as Assistant Minister in multiple government departments.
Alex Epstein is a philosopher, energy expert, author, and creator of EnergyTalkingPoints.com. In 2022, he published Fossil Future: Why Global Human Flourishing Requires More Oil, Coal, and Natural Gas-Not Less.
Dr Marian L. Tupy is the founder and editor of HumanProgress.org and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute’s Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity. He is the co-author of Superabundance: The Story of Population Growth, Innovation, and Human Flourishing on an Infinitely Bountiful Planet.
SUBSCRIBE to the Channel to keep up-to-date with all the talks from the ARC Conference 2023. Make sure to leave your thoughts in the comments below.
ARC RESEARCH: The Alliance for Responsible Citizenship has also published several research papers that accompanied the 2023 Conference. If you’d like to go deeper into the ideas from the conference, please read our research papers here: www.arcforum.c...
Find out more about the ARC here and subscribe the our newsletter for our latest updates: www.arcforum.c...
-
ARC, the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship, is a global community with a vision of a world where every citizen can prosper, contribute, and flourish. Join us in building this narrative, rejecting the notion of inevitable decline. Instead, let's seek solutions that tap into humanity's highest virtues and remarkable capacity for innovation and ingenuity.
Follow us on:
X/Twitter - / arc_forum
Instagram - / arc_forum
I work in Haiti, one of the poorest places in the world. The biggest difficulty surviving in poor countries after getting enough food is the cost of cooking it. Fuel costs are prohabitive in stopping malnutrician. Trees are cut to be made into charcoal, which burns poorly and cause lung issues for woman and children. Propane for example would make massive improvements for those living in poverty.
Who will pay for the propane, shipping and storage costs? EXXON isn’t giving it away. They sell to the highest bidder as their shareholders require. If Haiti can out bid other countries they can have all they want.
Alex Epstein 's "FOSSIL FUTURE" on sale now.The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels. HUMAN FLOURISHING
It sound like a good investment to borrow money to build almost free energy.
Wood fire safety is not more important than wood fire security. Generations have thrived, using wood fires, for cooking heath, well-being and joy. Now the left wants to take it away. In the Netherlands we now have one province where wood fires illegal, can you imagine? The madness is beyond me.
the energy was solved 100 years ago. the greed is the problem
Havent listened to this yet, but ARC is renewing my hope in bright future of humanity!
These ARC talks are like TED talks but for people not owned by pseudoscience
haha well said
Ya, these guys are legit.
The more we use the more we have. And we have more than enough resources on earth as long as we go to space to get it.
Nice to hear opinions not biased by big Solar and wind lobbyist.
@@Lowe-life Big Solar and Wind = Big Blackout.
@@aliendroneservices6621i do agree without a way to store carbon alternative energy, it’s got reliability problems.
@@Lowe-life No. That's not the issue. Wind and solar are infinitely-expensive, on a sustained basis (which is why "transitioning" to wind and solar would be a transition to a state of permanent blackout). That's the issue.
The “parasite polluter” narrative as well as “declining resources” is so established, even in my head, that it feels to good to be true to listen to this panel.
The things Bjørn Lomborg, Michael Shellenberger and Marian Tuby and others talk about, having this positive counter narrative is so important to embrace!
Hope and a positive vision is what our society needs.
It does make me feel so good about the way we are going. Erases any guilts or fears of wrong doing to current and future earth. Like a giant astroturf hug!! 🤗 😊😊🎉
@@Lowe-life I thought a long one minute or so about how to answer to so much cynicism without regreting it in the long term and my answer to you is: ☯️ to you (I looked for the middle finger but couldn’t find it 😅)
@@TeamDiezinelli that’s a great repy to a opinion differing of yours. My comment was pretty snarky, but I just cannot see a stay the course of ever increasing consumption being the correct course. Merry Christmas. ☯️
Need more people like you in comments.
@@Lowe-life your comment is more then just snarky and you know you deserved my reply.
You don’t know anything about me and I never wrote that now that we heard this people we can just stop doing anything and be content and happy.
It’s the doomsday wording that I find appaling and counterproductive.
The story I like more is one that tells me there is hope, we can help make people resilient and find better solutions then tell a whole generation that they’re a cancer on earth.
That was the relief I felt. I hope I could make it a little more clear for you. Best wishes for the new year and take care with your snarkiness. 😉
We've heard echoes of Alex Epstein's work throughout this entire conference, and this is a very encouraging thing.
I agree with this positive information. Human ingenuity will prevail. I am an optimist😊
I love Alex in this.
His work is why I have since changed my views on climate change to that of being radically pro climate change. Not only do humans change the climate, but it is good that we do and we should do so more.
Thank you so much for this teaching & God bless you.
Three things to improve the ringing feedback in the audio:
-Use heavy rugs on the stage.
-In-ear monitors.
-A proper room-EQ (31-band) set up by any decent sound engineer.
[I love the content BTW.]
Thanks for the feedback! Really helpful to have in mind for next time.
I think the "live" sound quality was on-purpose. It doesn't sound like a high-end conference in front of a live audience if the sound is "dead".
How can we promote this organisation? Brilliant
Share the links ... family, friends, associates, co-workers .... I agree with you! Bloody brilliant.
I just shared this and peoples minds are breaking. Ha!
Alex Epstein's book "Fossil Future" should be required reading at every public school.
And by every policy maker!
Should be called fossil retirement party as it relates to US production. Ask any petro geologist about the decline of the Permian basin. Venezuela holds the world’s largest crude oil reserves. Far larger than Saudi Arabia’s. The US has only 2% of the world’s crude oil reserves. Did Eric mention that or is he playing dumb?
@@jtjones4081also Russia has $71 trillion dollars worth of proven oil and gas reserves. Vostok oil refinery is almost complete. Biggest refinery on the planet.
ive heard about the rokafelers fossil fuel scam
Russia has about 60 years worth of its annual consumption in proven reserves if they didn’t export any. They do export a lot, in fact crude and natural gas exports fund 44% of its governments expenditures. Even at 60 years, which they won’t have because of their financial dependence on exports what happens after that. At my age I realize 60 years is not a very long time to accomplish major infrastructure projects like Eisenhauer’s interstate highway system to accommodate the new technology of cars and trucks.
All sources of energy will be needed and this bashing of renewables by the ARC crew is juvenile and short sighted.
Amazing!! This conference is like a long, cool, refreshing drink of pure hydration ❤
understanding the difference between environmentalism and conservation is a big thing , everyone became down on coal over the last 20 years or so, but the American coal industry is the best way by far to produce solar panels , the same cant be said for Chinas coal plants, but the scrubber tech on all U.S. coal power plants are the most environmentally friendly way to get the resources need for solar to move to the next level .
Coal can’t compete with natural gas in the marketplace. Only takes a 20 man frack crew a couple months from land clearing to completion to frack a well. Hook it to a pipeline and it prints money for 10-20 years. For coal miners to produce the same BTUs takes way more man hours and heavy equipment. Environmentalists didn’t kill coal, natural gas in the marketplace did.
ARC just seems to be another recklessly inaccurate propaganda arm of the API.
What level is that?
But almost all solar panels are manufactured in China by burning Australian coal.
There is no need for solar panels.
What I would really love to see is an impartial discussion on different views on the climate and energy topics. I really liked what I heard on this panel and the direction of ARC on this topic in general: Taking cheap energy accessability serious as a very important factor of human flourishing and moving to a optimistic view on the matter. It seems like these gentlemen (among others) make a compelling case for this and for less concern about global warming. However, on this last point, I was a little troubled to hear what sounded to me very one-sided and maybe overly optimistic: "Nah, climate concern is just anti-human philosophy and actually warming is probably even a good thing". While I agree about the anti-human philosophy part in some strains of this (but definitely not all!), and detest it, I am very unclear about how to think about the impact of fossil fuels in the atmosphere. I highly doubt that all the research pointing to negative (for human and non-human living beings alike) outcomes is mistaken, though I take the point it should be properly balanced by research also on possible positive effects of warming. It would be wonderful if in consequence warming is nothing to be avoided so we would not need to think too much about emissions. Of course, even if we recognize severe negative effects of warming, I find it eminently reasonable (like Lomborg puts it) that the cost of addressing the negative outcomes can be lower than the cost of cutting emissions. I highly suspect that what we should do is to take both positive and negative consequences of climate change serious, weigh them with other consequences of changing means of energy production, and if we decide to not care about fossil fuel production, strategize hard and deeply about addressing the actual negative effects these policies might have, such as droughts or natural catastrophes in some areas of the world, and try to take as much responsibility for it as possible. Anyways, I'd love to see more honest, balanced and serious discussion on this in the future.
When engaging with Alex Epstein's longer form content, he emphasizes the importance of considering both the negative and positive effects of CO2 and fossil fuel usage. One of his primary examples is the idea of CO2 as "plant food." He wasn't so much saying that higher levels of CO2 is a good thing as he was trying to make the point that when listening to speakers addressing these issues, you can gauge their fair-mindedness if they are willing to acknowledge the life-improving aspects of fossil fuels before expressing concerns about their negative consequences. Alex often cites the balanced assessment we routinely conduct regarding the benefits and side effects of vaccines, highlighting its absence in our approach to thinking about climate change and energy policy. He consistently advocates for adopting this framework of thinking at the outset of all his discussions.
the transformation we need to adopt is HOW we think. Movement from a linear, random, separate, competition and conflict model towards a model that is cyclical, integrated, systematic, cooperation and in mutual service. Welcome to the Diamond, A-Spire. You are the Diamond, A-Spire...
Wow, these guys are great! This presentation is much too short, I have both Alex's and Marians books, how wonderful their ideas!
Why is it that those who tell you they've devoted their careers to science, broadly speaking, or, more narrowly, to climatology, ecology, biomimicry, etc., aren't actually committed to dealing with solutions and, at best, only the problems, which are then “outsourced” to corrupt think tanks and governments?
Is it because they do not wish to endure the daily discomforts, in their personal lives, that a serious commitment to ANY solution would entail?
What is that bias about, I wonder?
These people will never abandon car ownership; will never adopt a vegan diet; will never give up international travel, much of it frivolous and unnecessary, whose ecological footprints are worse than the average person’s, worse than a person living in poverty and worse than the person living in technologically limited conditions.
Thinking, just thinking, or talking, just talking about "superabundance" is certainly a time-consuming hobby...especially if you're broke.
So, what's been their sacrifice? Beyond the work and credentials we can easily parse online?
What's been their contribution that's both invisible and decentralised? That isn't aesthetically pleasing? That doesn't just make them feel good about themselves?
Beyond eco-signalling, we can all agree that life gets ugly. "Abundance! Abundance, now!"
Except for everything that happens to be scarce.
Why don't any of them talk about the ugliness that "abundance" would necessarily entail if it were scaled?
Can they - do they? - challenge themselves with inconvenient examples? Honestly: How uncomfortable are they REALLY willing to be in service of "superabundance"?
And why is it always the rich who preach their fetishized lifestyle, while we live another entirely?
"Superabundance" can only exist because worthlessness is plentiful, i.e. profitable. What's wrong with this picture?
Far too much to be taken seriously at all.
This is a conversation that should not have taken place without the expertise of Dr. Chris Martenson.
Or perhaps a petrogeologist who has studied rocks and shale formations for 40 years. Calling Epstein an energy expert is laughable.
Rocks don’t lie, politicians and “pundits” do.
The man who, in November 2011, predicted $200/bbl oil (in 2011 dollars) by January 1st, 2015. Was Chris Martenson correct?
Absolutely love this!!
Thank you both.
The world would be sufficiently abundant if the rich and corporate entities weren't so greedy.
Imagine how limited your access would be to all the things you have if corporations didn't exist. They can't be too greedy, because if people don't want to buy what the company is selling then they don't survive very long. They are extremely efficient processors and distributors. The only problem I have with them is monopoly price setting
@@nickrexroth2785and imposing ESG
Where does abundance come from? You have to understand that the world is a barren and dangerous place and we only have wealth because some people have had the courage, intelligence and determination to create it. Go around a big city and ask yourself, who and how was all this created? Then Don't take the world for granted.
7:14 Factcheck: Psyche is not orbiting Jupiter. It has its own orbit around the sun. I think Tupy likely misspoke that it orbits Jupiter because its orbit is between that of Mars and Jupiter in our solar system.
Thanks, Amanda, I could have listened to this discussion all day. Seventeen minutes was too short.
Wow. I guess it's always good to hear the other side in a debate. One should be able to competently state the opposing case before trying to defeat it, rather than ridiculing or making ad hominem attacks. There's always more to learn. Very stimulating.
Mate. lots of Aussies at ARC. I like.
Just you wait
They like themselves. Egos
Everyone has an ego. Yours is somewhere between bitterness and envy.
Flourishing = Life + Liberty + the ethical pursuit of Happiness.
Careful with the infinite. As infinite as a thing might seem, the potential human demand for the thing is probably greater
Demand causes price to rise, such causes supply to increase, which causes price to fall below where it started.
@@aliendroneservices6621 and then we figure out new ways to use it at the new lower price, that weren't economical at the higher price, soaking up that extra supply and putting upward pressure on prices again, as we become accustomed to the new convenience
Anyone who is interested in this video's subject must buy Marian Tupy's book (Super Abundance) and Alex Eptein's book (Fossil Future).
Both are really good.
Elements are eternal so it only a matter of recycling them properly. This means that a metal once delved up is of everlasting added value.
Loved this, thank you
You're very welcome!
Thank you and Greetings 👋
Really need to get Roy Sebag and Tupy on a podcast together
I'm surprised that the UN didn't plaster their glowbullwarming spiel on this. I guess that would give the game away...
I think the most important central thread to ARC has been to advocate for a deep humanism and to caution about trans-humanism (think: reproductive tech, AI, and human-machine integration, NOT men in dresses).
I think the message from Epstein and Tupy came off hubristic and unrealistic here, and in general stands out like a sore thumb alongside the more balanced conservative and liberal ideals being touted at ARC. To charge ahead with such abandon, ignoring legitimate environmental and social issues, goes against anti-trans-humanist cautions elsewhere at ARC. Don't get me wrong, I think there are also many truths and a positive message that comes out of the economic/philosophical optimists, most popular being perhaps: Pinker, Lomborg, Epstein, Tupy, Ridley.
Humans = cancer is a bad philosophy, yes. Linear extrapolation is sometimes dumb, yes. Human physical welfare has been elevated by technology, democracy and markets, yes. Fossil fuel taps cannot be simply turned off, yes. Cost-benefits must be carefully assessed, yes.
But, resources are not infinite, human ingenuity is not infinite. We can't economically turn straw into gold, just like that. Cheap energy is no panacea. More environmental impact does not equal more good. This is tunnel-vision and hubris, with a healthy dose of energy-contrarianism-incentives at play. Physical welfare has been elevated, but look at the side effects on psychological welfare. JBP likes to point out that trying to make radical change to highly complex systems has unpredictable and sometimes unwanted consequences. Well... best tread lightly then: on traditions and institutions AND the technological landscape and natural environment. This is the beauty of true conservatism, to put the brakes on to balance the eager progressives who hammer down on the throttle. There's a technological progressivism also (has it's benefits but needs restraint also).
Aside from needing to tread lightly, we need to create closed-loop industrial cycles sufficient to be sustainable in nature. We are far far from it, despite some economic (dismal science) slight of hand that paints a rosy picture of our modern RRR achievements.
We also need to keep pace to tech advancement with our morality and social organizations, otherwise the power that tech gives us, for good and for ill, entails more and more volatility and risk of disaster. Think about the oversized impact of the SARS-CoV-2 bug; and the oft quoted idiom: that human starvation is no longer a tech/scarcity issue, its an issue of failures of social organization; and all of the discussion around The Bomb, genetic engineering, and AI. Thankfully, our morality and social relations/institutions are the focus of the rest of the ARC talks.
Let's not go from a pessimistic enviro-doomsayer extreme to a techno-economic-optimist extreme.
Couldn’t agree more.
Sustainability has always been the goal.I have never heard any true pro renewables person talk about No Impact environmental policy. You have to admit that people can destroy precious ecosystems because of greed
That's dangerously close to a no-true-Scotsman type argument about categorization, but you have a point. The speeches at ARC all seem to talk about the Weak Man subset of the environmental movement.
Are we so quick to forget RFK's interview with Peterson? This is exactly the number-go-up mentality that results in tuna full of mercury, to name just one example.
And I'm on ARC's side in this. Go-go nuclear fission, and all that. But I'm also keenly aware of the arguments against it, like Nassim Taleb's point about incalculable risks. The speakers at ARC seem to be forming an echo chamber and lining up against a bogeyman rather than addressing the strongest version of their opposition. I'd really like to see that stop.
How on Earth are Amanda and Marian talking about turning lead into gold using fusion with a straight face in the context of the broader discussion about resource use / abuse? This is such a nutty tangent it is off-key with the rest of the conference which is supposedly based on 'realism', as previous speakers have mentioned.
Yes infinitely many things are _theoretically_ possible but if you want to convince people our planet is abundant by saying "hey we can _actually_ do alchemy now!" you might as well talk about warp drives and space colonies. Not exactly ARC material.
it's called a metaphor
@@superresistant0Sure
I don’t think he meant it as a metaphor.
@@johnandrews1162 no he didn't xD
wtf we are not running out of gold. By definition we are not talking about a real problem. The turning of lead to gold is a reference to alchemy, something from the realm of magic that turned out to be possible, not that we want to do it nor will ever have to.
Alex’s assertion that CO2 and more specifically that anthropogenic CO2 is the causal agent responsible for increasing the temperature, is incorrect. Firstly, CO2 rises after the temperature has increased. Secondly, there is no actual data that confirms the anthropogenic hypothesis. Emeritus Professor William Happer , a world renowned expert in astrophysics, in association with numerous other renowned experts in palaeontology, geology, physics and mathematics, have irrefutably discredited that theory.
Happer is well-known for blatant misinformation and a mountain of evidence proves that our emissions raised global CO2 levels which then caused almost all recent global warming. There is a bi-directional cusal relationship between CO2 and global temps: Raising either one raises the other, until some limiting feedback loop slows down and stops that cycle.
Adam was put in charge of tending a Garden, not a Jungle, nor a Forest.
human impact:
the world as we know it was created by humans, starting with the paleolithic hunter-gatherers favoring plants and animals they wanted to harvest later; the Anthropocene began when the first stone tool was made
Alex and Marian, two of the best.
Thank you.
If we had infinite energy,well, we could have everything we want. What if Eleanor Roosevelt could fly?
I do find this to be the talk that doesn't quite fit with the rest. It seems a little too potentially destructove, but the last few minites clarify a bit. In the beginning, it sounds like they advocate for carelessness, and they never do really state that the environment plays an important role. I think what I'm hearing is this: Don't feel guilty about being here, because we are tackling issues as they come and we can be optimistic that we are able to thrive in this world.
There is 2-3% wilderness left. There are WAAAY too many people, no matter what ARC would like, bible in hand.
I think it would have been more useful if they had two different points of view. I don't see how we can learn anything if you have two people making the same point without someone offering a challenging point of view. The reality is resources in their virgin form (untouched by humans) are a dwindling, although we have ever greater piles of bi product piled up around the world (especially in poor countries. Would it be possible to mine those bi product piles for a new source of resources, perhaps, but not with any system we have at present otherwise we would already be dong it.
Nature is what created all the resources we have available, and it took millions of years to create what we have. There is abundance for the few, but for most we are living surrounded by piles of bi product. So to put no finer point on it I have never listened to such a load of un challenged (corporate promoted) gibberish, in a very long time.
"Be fruitful and multiply..."
Very interesting thoughts. I cannot confirm that was was said is accurate or not, since you hear so little about those ideas and the corresponding research. It's certainly very good ARC gives those ideas a platform.
Word!
The space around the planet is functionally infinite our access to it (the space located resource)is the limiting factor
Thank you for this information I notice my university didn't have this topic in Environmental Engineering course work.
We , they? Need to put human flourishing at the centre of environmental policy, let’s have that debate as part of net zero .
I'm not going to watch this video right now (maybe later), but from the description of the video it seems like the panelists are making idiotic points.
We will survive but not as humans in their current mindsets. 😊😊😢😢😮
Why is the sound so low on all these ARC videos?
Loud and clear on my phone.
“dropping knowledge like Galileo dropped the apple…”
Not at all?
Did he do drop tests, or was it someone else?
It's a fair point. But pedantry shouldn't be confused with intelligence.
@@liquidusblue indeed... Just witness a fauci...
Newton observed an apple dropping, and pondered why. Galileo dropped something else:
"One of the first biographies of Galileo describes his famous experiment, *_dropping iron balls of different weights_* from the top of the famous leaning tower of Pisa. Galileo sought to prove that all objects fell at the same speed, regardless of their weight." Oct 31, 2022
Lovely to see the world upside down
Shout-out to Deep Space Industries, a company ahead of its time.
7:05 7:10
“Is the world ‘IS’ infinitely abundant”?
Is that a typo?
Already pointed it out. Look at my comment before yours.
Came to say the same thing.
yeah, please edit the thumbnail
Good spot - thank you!
Fixed - thank you team.
Thanks to our sponsors: the fossil fuel industry.
I wish. I invest heavily in coal and would also love to invest in oil and gas, but all of the oil CEOs are anti-fossil fuels. Since the 1980s, the fossil fuel industry has wasted billions a year trying to diversify away from fossil fuels, as they believe that fossil fuels are dangerous and running out.
Also I know that no environmentalists have any real arguments. All they can say is, "you're getting payed to say this."
Here are some facts:
1. Countries that adopt fossil fuels experience massive increases in life expectancy.
2. Fossil fuels are cheap. China and Korea use lots of coal, and have electricity costs of 8c/kwh. Germany and Italy attempt to use lots of solar and wind, and have electricity costs of 57c/kwh.
3. The world has only warmed by 1.5 degrees since 1800.
4. Climate related deaths are down 98% in the last hundred years.
5. The majority of climate related deaths are due to coldness, not heat.
6. China and Japan are now putting filters on their coal plants which capture all of the sulphur dioxide and most of the carbon dioxide.
Do you have any arguments against any of these points? Or maybe you're "payed for" by the $1.5 trillion a year renewable industry.
exactly!!
Not one member of ARC is talking about free birth nor permaculture. Same old story, money will always be a priority.
I think they should start listening to us normal folks for a minute.
But I should say I have been enjoying the talks thoroughly
Marian, tell us you're a grifter without telling us you're a grifter.
Also we have all the resources we need on earth as long as we perfect fission and space mining.
Excellent panel. I particularly was impressed with the true nature of nature portion at 5:00. Nature is dynamic not stable, it is deficient not sufficient, and it is dangerous not safe.
Only dangerous because we're on it!
The buzzwood right now is "urgency"... of climate change. I'm still looking for statistics that verify that in the last 30 years +, anthropological climate change is minimal.
Like the loaves and fishes.
So the more batteries Solar wind energy the cheaper and prolific the resources. Good to know.
Hemp biofuel and its many other uses are always overlooked. Why? When it has close to 1000 uses? Ford made a car completely out of it and was fueled with it. WW2 farmers were ordered to grow it. Our forefathers grew it for its many uses and drove the USA to freedom!
material is finite . non material or counciousness is infinite . if you keep following question of '' and then what'' . you might see meaninglessness of existence . an illusion that all things are including you all
In the more proximal future, we will produce more gold as the price increases and the economics then make sense.
Yeah like my bank account... 😂
No, there is only 2-3% wilderness left.
🔥🔥🔥
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and SUBDUE it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. Instead of reducing or eliminating mankind, we must/should/can find ways to allow for all mankind to benefit & prosper as we go forward into a positive future for all... WE MUST FIND THAT WAY!!!
the energy issue was solved 100 times over, the problem is that all the guys that solved it were suicided. so what now ?
Whilst I agree with some of their argument, they also need to accept that humans have decimated other species over the last 200 years and still are. Biodiversity is important to humans, take the role of insects in the pollination of plant species for example. Humans need to have a more positive impact on the future for all beneficial species.
Agree, but mother nature does a better job at this than human beings. 96% extinction during the permian mass extinction event, for example.
Should we attempt to mediate our impact a bit? Yes. Should we be absolutely floored everytime a species goes extinct? Depends on the species.
Mass extinction events are nothing new for our planet. Whether it is caused by man or not, life WILL adapt and life WILL survive for far after we're gone regardless of whether or not those forms of life are familiar to us.
@@jarofawesome4621 You Make a good point. Would we even be here if the dinosaurs hadn't gone extinct. They were around a very long time compared to us. Life will go on. I guess its a balance trying to acheive what is food for both humans and other hopefully beneficial species.
Wait what?? The new Speaker of the House and ARC pundit believes GOD created dinosaurs and humans 6,000 years ago, right??
CENSORSHIP IS STRONG HERE!! WHY???
WISDOM OF GOD!!! MALAKIAS 1:11. PSALMS 76:1-2. PSALMS 2:1-9. JEREMIAH 17:9-10. JEREMIAH 29:11. HEBREO 4:12. DO YOU KNOW THE LAW OR WILL OF GOD?!. EVERY QUESTION HAS AN APPROPRIATE AND CORRECT ANSWER... HOW CAN YOU KNOW THE QUESTION OF MAN AND THE QUESTION OF GOD?!. ISAIAH 1:18. ENDLESS QUESTION ONE ANSWER. ISAIAH 56:11. SANTA FE. ISAIAH 5:20-26. PSSST!!! GOD BLESS THE U.S.A. PSALMS 144:9. HEBREW 4:12. HEBREW 5:13. HEBREW 6:18. 2CHRONICLES 7:14.
PROVERB 8:1. YOU NEEDED ME. PSALMS 144:9. HEBREO 4:12
TERRAFORM INDUSTRIES. This company uses solar to produce methane from the CO2 from the air etc.. A solution to our energy needs.
Ah, how about a new term that explains the method of reasoning. "NON-HUMAN Rationale Making by Humans."
Jordan B Peterson talks about the "Hierarchy Of Being."
I have my questions about that mindset in its entirety. Yes, it is a moral hierarchy. BUT I think that until Jordan B Peterson FULLY surrenders to the YHWH as depicted in the word-for-word Bible, he is yet standing on the evil and wrong side (however subtly & with a generous heart) of "Jacobs Ladder" (which he portrays as a Tower Of Babel in the way he describes it... Christian Apologists have pointed out - and I noticed myself - that Peterson's concept of the Hierarchy Of Being is certainly NOT the Jacob's ladder of the scripture. Nor is it humanism in the end..... Thus IT IS in league with Noah Yuval Harari AND Darwin...... red alarm bells should be ringing everywhere at this point. As Peterson is probably one of the best leaders, next to Elon Musk, DeSantis, Ramaswamy, and a few others, that we have in the moment on the macro scale.)
When one sets his mind to reign over other humans as permanently distinct and permanently higher in hierarchy from them,
a very particular pattern of rational excuse-making and hypocrisy trail begins - first in the mind, lastly in the evidences remaining in archaeology. Dust to dust. So let's work to define and clarify this process somewhat better than we have. (Recognizing perverse incentives is a good start - and that they are often intentionally begun by those seeking to be masters of all existence beginning with all their immediate neighbors & competitors.)
NON-HUMANISM - defines the shape & motive of slippery-slope PROGRESS of reasoning probably from eternity past, but definitely from Malthus forward. The shape of the evolutionary-competitive-survival game in the conscious creaturely mind. It's motivation, worldview, competition, rationale-making, all the way into splitting one Kind into differing Species (that are not truly biologically distinct in the propagational sense) that war against each other toward the ends of mortal legacy and control of all history - relative to each other most specifically. In human terms, it's how a species would split, BEGINNING with cultic-hierarchical distinctions and the INTENT to create them to serve oneself. One could call it sinful & fallen creaturely & human nature to do this - and it is. But one cannot - at the end of the day - call it healthy for universal discourses in the long term!!!! At some point, someone will "win the race to the finish line" (which is usually collapse of the cult or civilization housing it). But I ask: WHAT IS THE SHAPE OF THE VICTOR? WHAT ARE HIS VIEWS? HOW WILL HE/IT TELL THE HISTORY? All of these patterns comprise most of what we see as history today - survivors must tell their stories, and in the darwinian sense, survivor is another name for victor, they are one in the same. Devil take the hindmost and reign in hell - does that not look like ALL the science fiction of the last 5 years?
From Theistic Humanism, to Evolutionary Transhumanism (now more tightly defined as Darwinian in original outlook - but it never really needs to prove itself), Evolutionary PostH, Evolutionary AntiH.
Since those who utilize "AntiH" are not necessarily against their own lives, they are not against their OWN humanity at the moment - they WILL fight to survive and contend on that basis with excuses & exceptions made for themselves. (We see Bill Gates & many others who do this hypocrisy as a matter of lifestyle and creating culture between themselves where such hypocrisy is a matter of entry into PROFITEERING-SECTOR leadership of the environmentalist cult. Malthusians really are evil, after all.)
TransH (H+), PostH, AntiH are all in Darwinian progression using Darwinian Selective rationales. These are all actual terms. New term to add even more nuance to this Joker's slaughterhouse school. NonH: those who know they are not God or gods, but select 'As If' and toward those ends, yet from within their remaining limited human knowledge, networking, and experience set. The desire to craft themselves into the Victors, the Only Survivor, the God (stated goal of G0gle's and Noah Yuval Harari's TransH to go to PostH godhood...Mormonism is a very early example of what types of thing this 'evolving' worldview does. And in another sense Muhammed was more radical and far more (bastardized version of Roman christianized) Human in not claiming divinity nor evolution into divinity, yet he was a proto-Joseph Smith/Bringham Young in very many ways. And his eschatology did use trickery/selective-inconsistency followed by murder as a sorting mechanism to use on all who opposed him, as Sole Hierarchical, profiteering..wait for it and obey... Prophet Of God. I have real problems with the fake-foundation it is built upon: the doctrine of the hirelings who enlist sheep payees, that comprise the clerisy class that you find in almost all religions in history universally.)
NON-HUMANISM: the motivation, pattern, method, means, self-deception, patterns whereby a human attempts to transcend and defeat the individualism inherent in human developmental decision making, the collapses it produces, and the profits & evils & remains all the way down to the dirt, until a rival supplants and either remembers or fails to care to remember what happened before him.
This is a very complex way of stating: DEATH IS AN ENEMY. IT BRINGS US TO BECOMING DIRT. CAUSING DESPAIR & FUTILITY.
NOT ULTIMATELY A SELECTIVE TOOL OF EVOLUTIONARY TRANSCENDENCE TO HIGHER THINGS.
AS DARWINISM (AND MANY OTHER FACTIOUS TRIBALISMS) TEACH US TO BELIEVE AND BEHAVE LIKE.
But to preach with the TransHumanists that we should progress exclusively toward PostHumanism....
Defines Death as: Human. (WRONG!)
And TransH advocates we transcend death with Artificial Selection and Intelligent Design INTO THE FUTURE, while preaching that only Natural Selection & ACCIDENTAL (non-intelligent) Design are responsible for cosmic creation of the first intelligences - thus making Darwinism and Darwinian rationales appear (to the believer in Darwinian origins!) entirely MORAL and progress-oriented - when it is only death and decay, social entropy of tribalism between religious cults (albeit Neo-Darwinism is a very very very BIG religious cult bent on transcendence at all cost because the alternative is to admit that DEATH wins over progress due to natural selection winning over artificial selectivity)!
But Jesus ever lives, to make intercession for us, as Human.
Yeshua HaMashiach.
Yes, God may be stooping quite a bit to help us learn HOW. TO. GROW. and walk with him - even beyond death. While remaining human.
Human volition, predictable creaturely needs of human individuals, etc. Almost everything is patterns. Why have we not learned them better in 5000 years? What are the enemies we must defeat so that we CAN learn or WILL learn?
Our present ignorance is like This Present Darkness - a very doctored one, increasingly malicious and intent on our death. It is not a natural state of innocence happening "just" because. But it is happening from several specific causes. Mostly worldview related. Shaping the contest of ambitions surrendered to those worldviews. People like Gates (and MOST others on earth currently) believe not for evidentiary reasons (studying scientifically & reasoning together impartially - doesn't really lead to discoveries that verify what most modern scientistic believers believe!) but for moralistic rationale excuse-making reasons. Utility. Expediency. Maximizing their personal gain, with whatever limited knowledge, skill set, associations that they have been able to scrounge up over their lifetimes in a postmodern world (postmodern since probably after World War 1 exposed what Marxism/Socialism/Darwinism does to "old" things (things that now are!): lead them to war like sheep, then things fail, then surrender to gang-like regime and mass death - then after bigger failure & discovery: rinse, recover, go higher, escalate, repeat....)
OBI (Open Bible Individualism with Biblical Evidences in open discourses)
Via our Unalienable/Inherent Human Individual Rights/Abilities of freedom of persuasion and opinion, freedom of speech, etc.
And in the direction of The Abraham Accords, with a Genesis 13 generosity lending itself to discourses concerning Genesis 1 - 13 in holistic evidentiary universal discourses AND art accompanying - and with reference to the implications for universal human governance and categories of existence (and natural boundaries - as well as private property stewardship).
Only with Genesis 1-13 can we grow beyond the ultimate eschatological "filter" of fears relating to Revelation 20:7-10. Where we are now.
It is a serpentine dragon. And didn't Pharoah wear a serpentine headpiece? And what is China's proud mass-collectivist-geographic symbol? Of course Hobbes was aware of all these things. Just as sure as Yeshua had heard of Plato, 400 years later. He restricted himself to Israel during his earthly walk - because he dealt with the problems with the headpieces of his own people first when they came against him. Otherwise, if they hadn't come against him, they would have worked with him. And then other nations would have been shepherded eventually. As he told his body to do - the 500 witnesses who saw him ascend.
So I say "Lord I believe, help thou mine unbelief in the nighttime hours."
Wow...mining psyche! What a metaphor
Essentially infinitely transformable 😂
To much talking , put it withi the public for everyone now
plain and simple
I like cooking with wood
These are liars and are evil.
I agree, anyone promoting human flourishing must be evil!
Slander is not an argument. It's just lazy.
If we irrigate we need dams.
Or desalination.
@@aliendroneservices6621 very expensive way to get water
@@aliendroneservices6621 "Or desalination." Which creates its own ecological damage.
@@karlwheatley1244 So, now you want to exterminate all the whales, since they desalinate sea water?
"Whales are able to filter salt out of the seawater they drink, using specialized organs called kidneys and salt glands."
These guys are flat earthers or aliens?
He's not wrong. You can bombard elements with neutrons to change what they are. Like he says ridiculously expensive like an eco company making diamonds from air.
@@liquidusblue
Stay on line and some of our agents will answer to you. Your call is important to us!
Look up “Simon-Ehrlich wager”
Capitalism:The UNKNOWN Ideal by Ayn Rand.
So no breaking up the tech giants right? Atlas Shruggged.
@@jtjones4081 No you shouldn't break up tech giants, you don't have a right to interfere with other people's property.
Alex Epstein slam dunk in the first 5 minutes
Clearly these guys have failed basic logic. At 1:56, Marian says we won't run out of resources because during the industrial revolution the relative prices of things fell, meaning we had made them more abundant. He says "The more resources we used the more resources we wound up with." Either he's into deep denial or he secretly knows that we only made them feel more abundant to humans because we were digging them up and making what was once underground accessible to humans. But as even a school child can figure out, doing that meant that the total amount of resources on Earth--which is ultimately what matters--was going steadily downward. Most of the cheap, concentrated, and easy-to-access deposits of almost all raw materials are already depleted so "superabundance" or infinite supplies is obviously either a profitable lie, or at best, a reflection of some incredibly shallow thinking.
"...the total amount of resources on Earth--which is ultimately what matters--was going steadily downward."
Correct. 100 years ago, there remained *_75 trillion tonnes of uranium_* in the earth's crust. Today, there remain *_75 trillion tonnes of uranium_* in the earth's crust (or 10 billion years' worth, at today's all-fuels burn-rate of 20 TW).
@@aliendroneservices6621 It doesn't matter how much is there: Humans have no means of safely operating thousands of nuclear plants and safely storing all the wastes--especially under the chaotic breakdown conditions we are setting in motion. Safety must be our first priority, not doing whatever it takes to continue gluttonous consumption, regardless of the risks.
@@karlwheatley1244 "Humans have no means of safely operating thousands of nuclear plants..."
Ditto for all other fuels, and ditto for energy-conservation. At the same time, we have found that the rate of energy use is an independent factor causing safety. *_Burn through fuel faster, and it makes people safer._*
@@aliendroneservices6621 "Ditto for all other fuels" NO, it's possible to safely get our energy from wind, solar and geothermal.
"At the same time, we have found that the rate of energy use is an independent factor causing safety. Burn through fuel faster, and it makes people safer." Prove that with data my friend and prove it for long-term prospects. Over the last 50 years, the faster we burned through energy, the faster we destroyed the ecosystems that all life depends on and the faster we warmed the planet--both of which are pushing us into worsening ecological and societal breakdown.
You haven't yet faced the elephant in the room which is that maintaining western consumerist lifestyles and growing industrialized capitalist economies is flatly incompatible with triggering collapse. This consumerist orgy will be winding down or ending abruptly within this coming century.
You lose me at Ayn Rand. Completely.
Edit might have missed it but didn't hear Ayn Rand mentioned.
Ah she's misunderstood though you agree with Jordan Peterson there.
I'm always entertained by how just the mention of Ayn Rand triggers and shuts down the brains of the left. Complete cranial lock-up.
Why is this important to point out?
Move on. 1 reference you don't like...