Party is over/ what makes us civil?

[nutronjon]

Not really, no. What if the consensus was that rape and murder were okay?

 

I'm not seeing a lot of civility there, despite the consensus. What you have here, questor, is a total non-sequitur. Your second point does not logically follow from the first.

 

Under what conditions would rape and murder become a consensus of okay behavior? I quess we see this happening in Africa, where one tribe is engaged in the extinction of another. Obviously this is not rule by reason, but a war mentality that is a kind of insanity. I believe we can say we have isolated cases of rule by emotion in our own civilization, the KKK and treatment of Blacks would be a point in case. However, again this is not democracy (a set of principles and values and way of living together, in other words a culture), nor a republic organized by laws.

 

We have a long ways to go, before there is adequate understanding of democracy and what consensus of the people has to do with being citizens of the US. I hope this discussion continues.

[InfiniteNow]

The argument here is on consensus in general, so the topic of said consensus is irrelevant.

 

I'm simply using the logic being presented to make a point that the logic fails.

 

 

If you wish to paint with broad strokes, be prepared to miss key details. :shrug:

[questor]

Infinite, why don't you explain to me what I said so I can understand the non-sequitur? When has any society at any time had consensus about allowing rape and murder? Do you have a better example?

[InfiniteNow]

Infinite, why don't you explain to me what I said so I can understand the non-sequitur?

Sure. You said:

 

"Civility comes from consensus of ideas or cultures."

 

I gave an example of consensus of ideas or cultures that DOES not result in civility. Hence, I proved your statement false.

 

I could have shown it false also by providing a way in which civility results from something other than consensus of ideas or cultures.

 

It's a non-sequitur. It's like saying, "Because bananas are yellow, toenails need occassional trimming."

 

It's a ridiculous claim that has no merit.

 

 

When has any society at any time had consensus about allowing rape and murder?

That couldn't be any less relevant to the point. I'm sure I could find examples, but the issue remains. You simply said "consensus brings civility." I disagreed, and I showed why.

 

 

Do you have a better example?

What do you mean "better?" My example above is pretty good in my book.

[questor]

I think this exchange is an excellent illustration that civility does not usually occur without tolerance and some meeting of the minds (consensus). Even in the same country and similar culture, and viewing the same issues, two people can be so far apart mentally that civility is not achievable. Maybe there is some biological difference in the way their minds conceive and process thought.

[REASON]

questor, would you say agreeing to disagree is an example of reaching a consensus?

[questor]

agreeing to disagree is recognition of a lack of consensus and a civil cessation of discussion and subsequent action on a proposal. To me, consensus means a meeting of the minds has been reached on the most appropriate action to be taken.

[nutronjon]

Sure. You said:

 

"Civility comes from consensus of ideas or cultures."

 

I gave an example of consensus of ideas or cultures that DOES not result in civility. Hence, I proved your statement false.

 

I could have shown it false also by providing a way in which civility results from something other than consensus of ideas or cultures.

 

It's a non-sequitur. It's like saying, "Because bananas are yellow, toenails need occassional trimming."

 

It's a ridiculous claim that has no merit.

 

 

 

That couldn't be any less relevant to the point. I'm sure I could find examples, but the issue remains. You simply said "consensus brings civility." I disagreed, and I showed why.

 

 

 

What do you mean "better?" My example above is pretty good in my book.

 

But Infinitenow, there is no culture as you discribe. Humans can do terrible things as are being done in Africa, but this is not a culture. It is the bread down of culture that causes the problem. Humans are social animals and as such are more prone to cooperation than raping and murdering, except in cases where the victim is not a member of the group.

 

Our brains are limited in the number of people we can recognize as "one of us", and from primates to humans there are different rules for how "one of us" is treated, and how "those people" are treated. Actually some primitive cultures didn't even recognize humans who were not members of their group, as humans. The rules and social pressures are different when we evolve civilizations. I do not believe ever in history of humanity has there been a civilization that has codoned rape of murder of one's own kind, civilizing rules normally oppose the rape and murder of others, except under conditions of war. Highly advanced civilizations do not tolerate the rape and murder of others, except murders that occur as a result of military orders. Soldiers who rape and murder can be brought up on charges, and hashly penalized.

 

When humans do something that is unpleasant, they put rules around the doing. In some societies, cannibolism is acceptable, when the rules are followed. However most civilizations make cannibolism taboo. But we should say, social breakdown is possible, and when this happens, and the humans are badly stressed, they can violate all rules. What happens to primitive people whose cultures are destroyed by western civilizations, is very unfortunate. People need their social agreements to live as we believe humans should live. And I this thread was started because of concern about the social breakdown in the US.

[nutronjon]

About education for technology vereses liberal education. The focus of liberal education is teaching us how to be civilizing human beings. The focus of education for technology, is skills deamed necessary to the military/industrial complex. Effectively, education for technology prepares the young for the Borg. The Borg is a Star Trek concept of a space ship that takes humans and surgerically implants computer parts into them, and forces them to serve the space ship. The difference between liberal education and education for technology for military and industrial purpose, is like that Captian Kirk's fight to protect the Enterprise from the Borg.

 

This is of course about the whole Industrial/Military Complex that is what the US has been turned into. Militarily the US is the most advanced in the world, but socially, the US is retarded, and even primitive.

[REASON]

agreeing to disagree is recognition of a lack of consensus and a civil cessation of discussion and subsequent action on a proposal. To me, consensus means a meeting of the minds has been reached on the most appropriate action to be taken.

 

So, agreeing to disagree is a civil action to be taken where there is no consensus, thus illustrating that civility can occur absent a consensus.

 

I might argue that since "consensus" can be defined as a general agreement, establishing a general agreement not to agree for the sake of civility could qualify as reaching a consensus even though there was disagreement over the primary issue.

 

I would generally agree that people are likely to be civil when they are in agreement with one another, but it is inconceivable that free thinking individuals are going to agree on everything. So expecting a civil society to rise out of achieving a general concensus is a pipe dream. What you are talking about is a collective mentality that tends to reject individuality. Not a very interesting existance if you ask me.

 

Therefore civility is going to have to occur despite the fact that there are disagreements and differences amongst peoples. Agreeing to disagee is only a small example of civility that can occur in such instances, compromise and sacrifice are others.

 

For civility to exist in any society or personal relationship, there first has to be a personal value of general respect and consideration of others, but there also has to be a willingness to give something of yourself, even if it's nothing more than agreeing to disagree.

[InfiniteNow]

But Infinitenow, there is no culture as you discribe. Humans can do terrible things as are being done in Africa, but this is not a culture. It is the bread down of culture that causes the problem.

It does happen, and the fact that you'd rather not include that in your sample matters not. These cultures do exist, and they don't go away just because you close your eyes to their existence.

 

Civility requires FAR more than consensus, and I'd even go so far as to suggest that consensus has next to nothing to do with civility. Further, nobody in this thread has bothered defining what they mean by civility, so we're quite possibly arguing about different topics altogether.

 

I also urge you to exercise caution before you continue making such generalizations about Africa. Those are dangerous waters best charted by someone who is good at expressing their ideas, conveying their opinions, and articulating their thoughts successfully to others. I'm concerned that this is an area in which you've repeatedly struggled in the past, and you could get yourself into trouble rather quickly by not thinking through exactly what you are saying.

 

 

 

Effectively, education for technology prepares the young for the Borg. The Borg is a Star Trek concept of a space ship that takes humans and surgerically implants computer parts into them, and forces them to serve the space ship. The difference between liberal education and education for technology for military and industrial purpose, is like that Captian Kirk's fight to protect the Enterprise from the Borg.

You must have meant Captain Picard or perhaps Captain Janeway? Borg was not part of the original series, and appeared for the first time on TNG in "Q Who?"

[REASON]

But Infinitenow, there is no culture as you discribe. Humans can do terrible things as are being done in Africa, but this is not a culture. It is the bread down of culture that causes the problem. Humans are social animals and as such are more prone to cooperation than raping and murdering, except in cases where the victim is not a member of the group.

 

Since INow is currently away, I'll answer on his behalf.

 

nutron, you are missing the point. INow is not in any way advocating a society of murder and rape, or suggesting that there is a specific example we can point to - although those problems have in fact been endemic to many cultures throughout the world and throughout history.

 

He is simply citing such a thing as an example of when a consensus opinion does not lead to civility. The notion of rape and murder is not the point, the point is that suggesting that concensus equals civility in a society is a false assertion.

 

Edit: Sorry INow. I thought you were offline.

[InfiniteNow]

Edit: Sorry INow. I thought you were offline.

 

No worries. You clarified my position quite well, and it was probably good that you did since my point kept being missed.

 

So, thank you. I was growing quite impatient and frustrated with the obtuse responses I was receiving, and might have said something "uncivil" had it continued. :shrug:

[CraigD]

I’m a latecomer to this thread, but reading it, came across several ideas that struck me as significantly inaccurate or incomplete. As there are too many to address in a single post, I’ll begin with these, responding to previous posts in the order in which they appear:

For two hundred years we enjoyed amazing economic growth, because of the marriage of oil and technology.

The social and economic revolutions of last three centuries (Although moderately successful engines date from nearly a century earlier, a conventional historical marker is 1774-1777, the installation date of the first Watt steam engines) was (pardoning the unavoidable pun) fueled by more than oil. Wood was a major (and environmentally terrible) early industrial fuel, giving way to coal. Even today, coal is a major fuel, accounting for about 50% of US electricity. Although coal is as slowly renewing a fuel as petroleum, its reserves are greater, estimated conservatively at 150 years at current rate of use, or about 60 is 100% of the worlds current power were from it.

 

Nutronjon makes a good observation that the past 200 years have been technologically different than the millennia that preceded them, but it would be more accurate, I think, to characterize this as a heat engine era than an oil one.

Now we must ask, just how much can technology do for us, and what will happen to our civilization, and civilizations, around the world, when industrial economies collapse?

As this is phrased, it states that economic collapse as the result of a shortage of energy is inevitable – a “when” rather than an “if”. However, although short-sighted planning is likely to result in some economic failure, the eventual, inevitable fall of future oil supply below current demand does not imply that net or per-person available power must decrease, because many practical sources of energy greatly exceeding that or oil exist.

 

Of these, solar is technically indisputably the greatest: The amount of power …

Technical sidebar: Energy and power have precise physical meanings. Energy is the potential to do work. Its SI unit is the Joule (J). 1 J is the energy required to apply a force of [math]1 \,\mbox{m/s}^2[/math] over a distance of 1 m, ie: about the energy required to lift a 1 kg mass 0.1 meter. Power is the rate at which work is done. Its SI unit is the Watt (W). 1 W = 1 J/s

… received by the Earth from the Sun is about [math]1.74 \times 10^{17} \,\mbox{W}[/math]. Our entire civilization uses energy at rate of about [math]1.5 \times 10^{13} \,\mbox{W}[/math], about 1/10,000th the previous amount. As estimated by such planning efforts as Zweibel, Mason and Fthenakis’s “Solar Grand Plan”, using present-day technology, including the necessary systems to supply power 24 hours a day, this could be accomplished using a land area totaling about [math]4 \times 10^{11} \,\mbox{m}^2[/math]. Although at first glance, this seems a huge area – a square totaling about 650 km on a side, or roughly the size of the US state of Montana – when compared to the area of the world’s various deserts and other unproductive lands, it’s tiny.

 

The Sun’s total power is about [math]4 \times 10^{26} \,\mbox{W}[/math]. If our civilization were to use outer space engineering techniques use only 1% of this total, our per-person power could be over a billion times what it is now, an increase nearly beyond imagining.

 

(source: wikipedia article “orders of magnitude (power))

 

Given the energy physics of our planet and solar system, and our civilization’s history of using increasing sources of available power, I optimistically doubt that per-person power consumption will stop increasing anytime in the near future. To use nutronjon’s metaphor, I strongly doubt the party is even close to over. Pessimistically, however, I’m reminded that it’s unwise to discount our civilization’s capacity for bad planning and catastrophic folly. The synthesis of my optimism and pessimism can be summarized as advice to the engineering student:

Shoot for a career in aerospace (what could be cooler?), but the practical know-how to scratch-build a 19th century wood-fired steam engine, or a good prehistoric wood oven, are good back-ups.

[questor]

Excerpt from About.com

''The world's current (overall as well as natural) growth rate is about 1.14%, representing a doubling time of 61 years. We can expect the world's population of 6.5 billion to become 13 billion by 2067 if current growth continues. The world's growth rate peaked in the 1960s at 2% and a doubling time of 35 years.'' (from About.com: Geography: Population Growth)

How does this factor into the equation, and why has there been no hue and

cry lately about the population explosion? The earth cannot support an infinite number of people, and we don't know how many it can support with water becoming increasingly scarce.

[nutronjon]

I’m a latecomer to this thread, but reading it, came across several ideas that struck me as significantly inaccurate or incomplete. As there are too many to address in a single post, I’ll begin with these, responding to previous posts in the order in which they appear: The social and economic revolutions of last three centuries (Although moderately successful engines date from nearly a century earlier, a conventional historical marker is 1774-1777, the installation date of the first Watt steam engines) was (pardoning the unavoidable pun) fueled by more than oil. Wood was a major (and environmentally terrible) early industrial fuel, giving way to coal. Even today, coal is a major fuel, accounting for about 50% of US electricity. Although coal is as slowly renewing a fuel as petroleum, its reserves are greater, estimated conservatively at 150 years at current rate of use, or about 60 is 100% of the worlds current power were from it.

 

Nutronjon makes a good observation that the past 200 years have been technologically different than the millennia that preceded them, but it would be more accurate, I think, to characterize this as a heat engine era than an oil one.As this is phrased, it states that economic collapse as the result of a shortage of energy is inevitable – a “when” rather than an “if”. However, although short-sighted planning is likely to result in some economic failure, the eventual, inevitable fall of future oil supply below current demand does not imply that net or per-person available power must decrease, because many practical sources of energy greatly exceeding that or oil exist.

 

Of these, solar is technically indisputably the greatest: The amount of power …

Technical sidebar: Energy and power have precise physical meanings. Energy is the potential to do work. Its SI unit is the Joule (J). 1 J is the energy required to apply a force of [math]1 ,mbox{m/s}^2[/math] over a distance of 1 m, ie: about the energy required to lift a 1 kg mass 0.1 meter. Power is the rate at which work is done. Its SI unit is the Watt (W). 1 W = 1 J/s

… received by the Earth from the Sun is about [math]1.74 times 10^{17} ,mbox{W}[/math]. Our entire civilization uses energy at rate of about [math]1.5 times 10^{13} ,mbox{W}[/math], about 1/10,000th the previous amount. As estimated by such planning efforts as Zweibel, Mason and Fthenakis’s “Solar Grand Plan”, using present-day technology, including the necessary systems to supply power 24 hours a day, this could be accomplished using a land area totaling about [math]4 times 10^{11} ,mbox{m}^2[/math]. Although at first glance, this seems a huge area – a square totaling about 650 km on a side, or roughly the size of the US state of Montana – when compared to the area of the world’s various deserts and other unproductive lands, it’s tiny.

 

The Sun’s total power is about [math]4 times 10^{26} ,mbox{W}[/math]. If our civilization were to use outer space engineering techniques use only 1% of this total, our per-person power could be over a billion times what it is now, an increase nearly beyond imagining.

 

(source: wikipedia article “orders of magnitude (power))

 

Given the energy physics of our planet and solar system, and our civilization’s history of using increasing sources of available power, I optimistically doubt that per-person power consumption will stop increasing anytime in the near future. To use nutronjon’s metaphor, I strongly doubt the party is even close to over. Pessimistically, however, I’m reminded that it’s unwise to discount our civilization’s capacity for bad planning and catastrophic folly. The synthesis of my optimism and pessimism can be summarized as advice to the engineering student:

Shoot for a career in aerospace (what could be cooler?), but the practical know-how to scratch-build a 19th century wood-fired steam engine, or a good prehistoric wood oven, are good back-ups.

 

Craig, I love your contribution to this thread. I especially like your term "heat engine era". Are others using this term? I ask, because I think this termology is useful, and knowing how others use the term would be helpful. The more I ponder the term, the more I like it.

 

The geologist whose books I enjoy, speaks of the oil based economy and says we could have a solar based economy. However, he also says the shift from an oil based economy to a solar based economy "would almost certainly involve some large changes in life-styles and a considerable reorganization of society". I am not sure what he had in mind, but he says some areas of the world are better for solar power than others.

 

The oil rich countries are also the ones best suited for solar energy, and this could mean, Arab countries could advance into the future peacefully, if solar technology is developed fast enough. It would make sense for industry to move where energy is the most available.

 

If Arab countries can not make this shift, terrible wars are likely once the oil is gone, because these people will not return to the poverty they had peacefully, and they have no other mineral resources. The first thing oil money buys is weapons of war, and future wars will be much more deadly than past wars. As the world is economically connected, any wars become an economic problem. Besides Europe needs solar energy from the Arab countries when the oil is gone, and Europe has to do well if the US is going to do well, lets do what we can to advance solar energy.

 

But we do need to understand this energy will not be free. There is the cost of building solar cells, and the cost of storing the energy, and the cost of transmitting the energy. Right now the cost are too high to justify the shift. Improving related technology will improve the whole situation. Better batteries, optic fibers instead of resistant wires, etc. are also part of the solution. I tried so hard to get my grandchildren to understand the urgent demand of better science and technology, but they blow me off. :shrug:

[InfiniteNow]

But we do need to understand this energy will not be free. There is the cost of building solar cells, and the cost of storing the energy, and the cost of transmitting the energy. Right now the cost are too high to justify the shift.

Actually, it's not, and I encourage you to review the thread I opened on this recently, as well as the many contributions already offered within it:

 

http://hypography.com/forums/engineering-applied-science/15556-i-think-we-must-try.html