Re: Priorities

Jon Louis Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > you know very well that is not what i mean. Sorry for being dense, but I do not. You wrote about people who have "way too much property". How much is way too much? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listi

Priorities

> > > > my priority is regulation of those who have > way too much property.> > as a matter of fact, i own a home in eureka, > california, and forty acres in > > shasta county. which is certainly more than most > people in the world, but far > > less than the kind of corporate entities i am > ref

Re: Priorities

Jon Louis Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > my priority is regulation of those who have way too much property. > as a matter of fact, i own a home in eureka, california, and forty acres in > shasta county. which is certainly more than most people in the world, but far > less than the kind of corp

Priorities

> > my priority is regulation of those who have way too much property. > The very fact that you are posting an email > here suggests that you have more property > than millions, and probably > billions of people in the world. as a matter of fact, i own a home in eureka, california, and forty a

Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!

Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For public companies, the "long run" is anything more than a year or two, What is it for politicians? > Who cares if the company will run out of trees, as long as it isn't going to > happen until long after the current senior management and board are gone? I

war on the environment...

> > it will become much, much worse in this century. some > > estimates are that we will reach critical mass in four > more years, and then the problem will correct itself... > I think those estimates may be a bit off. My estimate is 5 > years. > Oh, wait, I just checked my work, and I seem to

Re: war on the environment...

Jon Louis Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > it will become much, much worse in this century. some > estimates are that we will reach critical mass in four more years, and then > the > problem will correct itself... I think those estimates may be a bit off. My estimate is 5 years. Oh, wait, I just

Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!

On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 2:25 PM, John Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > > Sorry, I did not mean the groups to be mutually-exclusive or > all-encompassing. > Some posts seem to fit into both, some neither. But is was interesting to > see how similar some posts appeared as far as faith in a pater

Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!

On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 2:16 PM, John Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > Anyway, do you think that > a logging company that clear cuts its forests will be the most profitable, > in the long run, in a competitive market? Well, I do... if by clear-cutting it drives the competition out of busine

war on the environment...

> The "solution" to Pearl Harbor was > straightforward. The "solution" to > the environment is not. I don't see how some > politicians, who have spent > precious little time studying either the environment or > economics, will be > capable of solving the "problem". Simply deciding > to go to war on

One word you can say on television

___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Science and Ideals.

On 2 Sep 2008, at 23:47, Dan M wrote: > This is actually at the heart of my point. As you said, it has to > stop > someplace. Different people have different stopping places when they > develop ethical systems. Systems have been developed that I would > guess > most of us would find repugn

Re: Oil

Bruce wrote: > > A good indicator of how much environmental impact there would be is > the drilling currently taking place on the North Slope. Everything > needed to support the drilling crews and equipment -- and I mean > everything, food, living supplies, drilling mud, logging/analysis > equipm

Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!

Kevin B. O'Brien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > If the problem were not urgent, if we had the luxury of reducing CO2 > emissions by 30% over the next hundred years, I would probably agree > with you. Tweaking market incentives would probably be a very good way > to address that sort of problem. But

RE: Science and Ideals.

> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Olin Elliott > Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 11:11 AM > To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion > Subject: Re: Science and Ideals. > > >If ethics is valid because it is 'grounded' in X, what m

Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!

John Williams wrote: > "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >> It is clear that climate change is not something >> the market can handle in any effective manner. Only government action has >> any >> possibility of tackling this problem. >> > > I do not have blind faith in governm

RE: Science and Ideals.

> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Charlie Bell > Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 3:53 PM > To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion > Subject: Re: Science and Ideals. > > > On 03/09/2008, at 1:07 AM, Dan M wrote: > > >> > >> I

Re: Priorities

Jon Louis Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > my priority is regulation of those who have way too much property. The very fact that you are posting an email here suggests that you have more property than millions, and probably billions of people in the world. _

Priorities

> From: John Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I was not referring to the framework for any specific > country. If your > country does not have basic laws protecting property and > individual > liberty, then I suggest worrying less about government > regulations to > reduce waste and more about basic

Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!

Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > If not, then somebody has successfully re-framed our conversations in an > unfortunate way. Sorry, I did not mean the groups to be mutually-exclusive or all-encompassing. Some posts seem to fit into both, some neither. But is was interesting to see how similar

Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!

Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I'd say that the American free market is an illusion > anyway. I'd agree that the United State's market is far from free. I did not intend to compare countries. Indeed, the more global the market, the better, as far as I am concerned. > So allowing a loggin

Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!

On 03/09/2008, at 6:58 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: > On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 9:41 PM, John Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >wrote: > >> >> My impression is that this list has an ongoing debate between >> religous >> people, >> with faith in their gods, and government people, with faith in their >> pol

Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!

On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 9:41 PM, John Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > My impression is that this list has an ongoing debate between religous > people, > with faith in their gods, and government people, with faith in their > politicians. Eh? Is that sarcasm? I hope. If not, then somebody

Re: Science and Ideals.

On 03/09/2008, at 1:07 AM, Dan M wrote: >> >> I accept a variant of the "golden rule", I just don't accept that >> it's >> anything other than a personal and social contract. >> > > OK, so just to be clear, you think that no social or personal > contract is > actually better than any other.

Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!

On 03/09/2008, at 12:50 AM, John Williams wrote: > > > Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Yes - regulations should be about putting a brake on waste and >> environmental damage, unethical practices and exploitation. > > I don't understand the "yes", since what follows the yes does not > agre

Gas prices, complex hydrocarbons & alternative fuel

> > the market for higher mpg cars started to pick up > after the OPEC gas price > > increases in the 70s. unfortunately, it didn't > last. while the price of > > gas will continue to fluctuate, it will no longer dip > that much, > > relatively, because demand will continue to outstrip > supply,

RE: Gas prices & alternative fuel

> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Jon Louis Mann > Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 3:13 PM > To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion > Subject: Gas prices & alternative fuel > > ...because something is cheap doesn't mean > > we

Gas prices & alternative fuel

...because something is cheap doesn't mean > we need to be > wasteful, but that's the mentality and > lifestyle of the US. > Until gas prices started going up, higher efficiency cars > were a fantasy for > the future. > In the 80's & 90"s, most people, myself > included, never considered or cared

Re: Science and Ideals.

On 1 Sep 2008, at 15:34, Olin Elliott wrote: >> The question 'where do our ethical ideas come from' has the answer >> 'our nature as social mammals'. > >> The question 'how do we tell good from bad' does not have the answer >> 'our nature as social mammals'. > >> Category Mistake Maru > > I'm not

Re: Oil

On Sep 2, 2008, at 10:42 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: Honestly, what _short-term_ effect will drilling in Anwar and on our >>> coasts >>> have on prices? >> >> The real question about drilling in areas that have been off limits >> until >> now is when do we do it? The record of spills fro

Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!

On Sep 2, 2008, at 9:28 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > It is clear that climate change is not something the market can > handle in any effective manner. Only government action has any > possibility of tackling this problem. That's been well established. The government does best when it pr

Re: Science and Ideals.

On Sep 1, 2008, at 8:18 PM, Dan M wrote: > A number of atheists as well as theists have ideals they hold to be > true. > They believe in human rights. For example, most atheists that I > know accept > some form of the Golden Rule. I think its accurate to say that most > folks > on Brin-L b

Re: Science and Ideals.

>If ethics is valid because it is 'grounded' in X, what makes X a valid >basis? Because it's grounded in Y? And Y in Z? And ... Mathematics, as has been pointed out, is grounded on axioms that cannot themselves be proven or reduced to anything else. Kurt Goedel showed that any mathematical

Re: Oil

On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 8:13 AM, Dan M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Honestly, what _short-term_ effect will drilling in Anwar and on our > > coasts > > have on prices? > > The real question about drilling in areas that have been off limits until > now is when do we do it? The record of spills

Re: Science and Ideals.

On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 7:34 AM, Olin Elliott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I suspect that the same thing is true of a lot of our idealistic ethical > systems -- and the systems I hold most precious, democracy, the open > society, etc. almost certainly fall into this category -- they do not come >

Re: Science and Ideals.

On 2 Sep 2008, at 15:53, Dan M wrote: > > >> -Original Message- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:brin-l- >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> Behalf Of Doug Pensinger >> >> Of course if I was to ask the question it would probably be something >> like; >> do you think ethics are created by magic

Oil

> > Honestly, what _short-term_ effect will drilling in Anwar and on our > coasts > have on prices? The real question about drilling in areas that have been off limits until now is when do we do it? The record of spills from oil well drilling has been very good; the real damage has occurred in th

Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!

"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > It is clear that climate change is not something > the market can handle in any effective manner. Only government action has any > possibility of tackling this problem. I do not have blind faith in government to solve difficult problems. The only way

RE: Science and Ideals.

> > I accept a variant of the "golden rule", I just don't accept that it's > anything other than a personal and social contract. > OK, so just to be clear, you think that no social or personal contract is actually better than any other. (Clearly there have been a number of social contracts on h

Ethics (was Re: Science and Ideals.)

On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 1:24 AM, Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > > Ethics is a product of philosophy. It's not a county in eastern England? (Tom Holt reference, IIFC.) Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Science and Ideals.

> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Doug Pensinger > Sent: Monday, September 01, 2008 10:48 PM > To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion > Subject: Re: Science and Ideals. > > Dan M wrote: > > > > > The two clear views are these:

Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!

Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Yes - regulations should be about putting a brake on waste and > environmental damage, unethical practices and exploitation. I don't understand the "yes", since what follows the yes does not agree with what I wrote. Waste is not something that can be effici

Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!

Better to keep government as small as possible, not put our politicians on a pedestal, and instead rely on ourselves and competition of ideas in a marketplace to determine solutions to problems. If the "gene-pool" of ideas is sufficiently diverse, then natural-selection in a free-market will

Re: Science and Ideals.

On 02/09/2008, at 11:40 PM, William T Goodall wrote: >> The only way to prove it is as a theorem from another axiom that's >> not >> provable: e.g. because we are all made in the image and likeness of >> God we >> must love one's neighbor as oneself. > > Or it could be a social contract. OK, ji

Re: Science and Ideals.

On 02/09/2008, at 11:18 AM, Dan M wrote: > Now, IIRC, Charlie had some quibbles with "do onto others as you > would have > them do unto you." He noted, correctly, that others may want and need > things differently from your own needs and wants. (Reminds me of > the old > story of the monkey

Re: Science and Ideals.

On 2 Sep 2008, at 02:18, Dan M wrote: > My personal favorite version is "love your neighbor as you love > yourself" > because this balances the importance of neighbor and oneself. I > know people > who are so self-sacrificing that they neglect themselves. How best > to do > this can be the

Re: Science and Ideals.

On 2 Sep 2008, at 02:18, Dan M wrote: > > So, there seems to be at least a few of us who agree that the > naturalistic > fallacy is just that, a fallacy. But, if we don't go that route, > then where > does one ground basic concepts of good and evil, right and wrong, > better and > worse? >

Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!

On 02/09/2008, at 2:41 PM, John Williams wrote: > My impression is that this list has an ongoing debate between > religous people, > with faith in their gods, and government people, with faith in their > politicians. I'm neither of those. I'm not sure how long you've been lurking, but this

Re: Science and Ideals.

On 2 Sep 2008, at 02:18, Dan M wrote: >> Olin wrote at the end >> These are all scientific questions though. If the answers don't >> come form >> there, where will they come from? >> > > [snip] > So, there seems to be at least a few of us who agree that the > naturalistic > fallacy is just t

Re: Sarah Palin

On 2 Sep 2008, at 08:06, Dave Land wrote: > On Aug 30, 2008, at 5:23 PM, William T Goodall wrote: > >> >> On 30 Aug 2008, at 23:48, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote: >> >>> Even if you don't give a fuck about people with Down Syndrome, >>> remember that, not long ago, someone else started d

Re: Sarah Palin

On Aug 30, 2008, at 5:23 PM, William T Goodall wrote: > > On 30 Aug 2008, at 23:48, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote: > >> Even if you don't give a fuck about people with Down Syndrome, >> remember that, not long ago, someone else started doing the >> same thing, and he-who-should-not-be-men