Is George W Bush a complete moron ?

[clapstyx]

Ok with the blah blah blah. Heres a bit you missed. Mankind has not even worked out the basics of symbiotic logic necessary for the creation of ecosystems complex enough to support an over consuming species lifestyle like ours. Since that is a pre requisite to both the successful escapade into space and the maintenance of this planet would it not make more sense to seal with those issues. Hell consider the lessons we learn from stabilising the climate of this planet as an aid to recreating an Earth environment on Mars if you like. As for evolution we have a lot of evolving to do of our own mental capacity and consciousness let alone the ability to develop clear and defined lines of logic guidelines along which we can harmonically think.

 

As for your argument that we have to escape before the Sun explodes well that beats it all. Really if we found another planet that was within the right temperature ranges and had a suitable atmosphere and all that stuff the best thing the "people" there could do for their own survival would be to kick us off as fast as possible because we obviously havent got our own **** together well enough to be trusted. The holiest thing we have is our over inflated currency and we respect nothing else above it and will sacrifice all in its name. That alone doesnt make sense because its the most short term spoilt brat attitude any species can take. Heres a thought maybe the space program should be set up as a charity just like a rainforest charity and then everyone who thinks their future is on Mars can put their money into that and everyone who thinks "**** we dont quite have enough trees to survive here anymore" can spend it on their own defence. Im pretty certain the ecosystem will be in a very advanced phase of collapse long before they get a tree to grow on Mars.

[Qfwfq]

The U.S. itself is not a temperate forest region so expanding the global forest in the U.S. is not an efficient proposal. Even if the U.S. planted all of it's open space with plant life it does not have the optimal climate to support it. Countries that are temperate forest regions with better climates are busy harvesting more forest than they're renewing. Are you suggesting that we force these countries to reverese this process?

I doubt that Clapstyx was telling Bush to plant tropical forest in the US alone, but certainly there has been deforestation in North America and Europe too and these were largely responsible for that which has been done elsewhere.

 

At some point mankind's consumption will exceed that which the planet can supply or recover from. Should we wait until then with trying to learn how to branch out into space? That may be too late....

As we grow from 6 toward 10 billion, problems will certainly increase by the hour. So, you propose to terraform Mars and the figure out how to cart a substantial fraction of the global population over there? Do you believe in Star Trek's teletransport system?

 

Tell Bush and Clinton they should have upheld Kyoto instead of playing with toys. Colonizing Mars won't solve our troubles down here. Plant trees and waste less fuel, instead of setting bad example to the 3rd world populations.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Mankind has not even worked out the basics of symbiotic logic necessary for the creation of ecosystems complex enough to support an over consuming species lifestyle like ours.

 

What? That doesn't make any sense. How is that an argument against space exploration?

 

Your original point was that we should take the money we spend on exploring space and spend it on "fixing the environment" instead. My point is that that is a ridiculous thing to say. You picked the wrong target.

 

In fact, the NASA Budget for 2006 is 16.5B. That's not a lot considering they're going to put a man on Mars, design a new spaceship, finish a Space Station, and continue to do things like launch probes to Pluto. AND help to fix the environment. (Of course, they'll get that much for a while in order to get it done, but you get the idea.)

 

The EPA's budget, admittedly needs some work - it's underfunded at 7.5B. Of course, the EPA is the enforcement arm of the federal environmental apparatus, it doesn't make the laws, sign the treaties, or do the research into alternative energy sources. (NASA does some of that.)

 

Anyway, here's a breakdown.

Allright! A Pie Chart![/url]

 

Cutting NASA? That's 1% of the Federal Budget - 1%! But it's a good place to cut, right? Cause they don't do anything worthwhile for the environment.

 

Water Recycling

Fuel Cells

Landsat 7

AQUA Sat

 

Not to mention taking pictures of Earth from the Moon for enviromentalists (like myself) to use in advertising campaigns.

 

I'm not arguing that we should ignore the problems hear on earth - far from it, or that we should terraform Mars in lieu of reducing emission on planet Earth - We have lots of things that need to be fixed. But like Buzz said - you can either concentrate on the dirty spots, and try to make them all clean (and fail, I promise) or you can move forward.

 

What I am saying is that your argument that we should spend the NASA budget on things you care about is shortsighted, ill-informed, and unethical (for starters.)

 

Now can you tell me WHY you picked NASA as a target for your misplaced bout of fiscal conservatism?

 

TFS

 

edit: okay - so maybe that was a bit venomous. sorry. still. NASA? bad place to cut if you want to save money. remember, bill for the Iraq War so far $236B dollars. not particularly inspiring, considering. on the other hand - we landed on the freakin' moon MUCH, much cooler, and more useful in the long term.

[TheFaithfulStone]

whoopsy, double.

[Qfwfq]

Near Earth exploration can be helpful for environmental purposes down here, as well as useful for many things. Sending probes to Mars can be interesting, but to justify it on environmental issues is pushing things a bit too far. Please watch your words when criticizing what others say and delete your double post.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Sending probes to Mars can be interesting, but to justify it on environmental issues is pushing things a bit too far.

 

Agreed. Looking back I see that clapstyx didn't actually argue to cancel the ENTIRE NASA budget, just the part about going to Mars, but he did say that we should "solve problems here first."

 

But it's a hot button issue for me when people say in effect "we can't do anything new until we can do everything old perfectly." It's the classic reason liberal arguments piss me off - like Bill Clinton Said - "You make the perfect the enemy of the good."

 

We are NEVER going to fix all the problems. NEVER. It's like having kids - if you wait until you can afford them you'll never have them.

 

TFS

[InfiniteNow]

Lot of good thoughts being raised here. I commend TheFaithfulStone on their passion, and likewise everyone else on theirs regarding helping down here on the Big E.

 

However, there was a post that had a really big hole in it that needs to be acknowledged.

 

The free market already has the answer but we have not allowed it to evolve to its own theoretical ideals. Free market economics has at its foundation a presumption of "full information" so that the wisest possible decision can be made in regards to the allocation of scarce resources.

 

The one essential piece of information that the consumer does not have is a measure of environmental cost to measure how much resources were actually used and whether that was worth it or represents good value / good use. This means that the wisdom of the decision making process is shackled to a position of ignorance.

 

One solution to this is to place on each item a measure of environmental cost. The most primitive and readily implementable form of this is the ratio between the weight of all resources used throughout the production chain to create the product as against its final weight. The input resources would be measured in their original environmental state. The consumer in possession of this knowledge can then (as their concern for the future of the world escalates) choose products which have a lower environmental cost if they think its appropriate.

 

The consumer does have this information available to them if they care to research it a little. However, our need to manage our own personal, and sometimes scarce, resources (think money) so often outweighs our desire to do the right thing for the planet. I work hard for my dollar, and I want to get maximum return every time I spend it.

 

So, it's tough for me to rationalize something like photovoltaics for my roof which are going to cost $16,000, when I can buy a higher efficiency Air Conditioner, that works on energy from the electric company, much more cheaply...

 

Further, it's tough for me to justify going to (let's say) "Bob's A/C" who has as part of his mission statement "Only obtain products from Earth-friendly/GREEN sources," with a cost of $1,000.... when I could go to Wal-Mart, who's source is unknown, and get a similar product for $500...

 

Am I a bad person? I try not to be. Do I need to watch my spending and maximize my dollar? Absolutely.

[clapstyx]

Well I wasnt exactly singling out NASA alone for being a over glorified waste of time and resources. I will agree NASA has yielded some minor positive benefits to mankind..the non slip frypan! Its not that I disagree with an exploration of space its just that I think we are bothering with it 1000 years or so to early. Its well and good to say "Isnt it great that we have been so smart to point cameras at ourselves from space so we can google at ourselves" but thats a hell of a lot of money to spend on entertainment expenses.

 

See I look at the world differently from the point of view of what would mankind need to do and realise in order to enhance the probability of its long term survival. One of the problems we have at the moment is that the global climate change issue is a multi factorial compound problem and the only way to solve those is by a simultaneous equational approach. The problem is that few of us have developed a way to harness enough of our brain capacity to create and anaylse complex simultaneous equations. If we understood an ecosystem not in terms of plants and animals but in terms of inter related logical concepts we would discover (as many of us already have) that a rainforest is a superb organisational and problem solving model. Sure its complex but it lays out the template for mentally process complex simultaneous equations. If NASA spent just 1% of their budget and sent a bunch of there so called rocket scientists they would realise a far greater frontier..still with new life forms being discovered almost on a daily basis. This is what is about to be lost..the forest and the opportunity..probably within the next 12 months (in the case of the oldest and most complex template). Unless we gather this information and extract the full value from the resource (and that means using it to aid our own abilities by extracting every ounce of proven long run logic which these species express by their existence) we will be closing off our future options. I am sure you will think this is ridiculous..I dont care what you think..because you dont. If mankind really wanted to get himself out of the **** he is in he would realise that the ability to imagine and foresee is his greatest evolutionary advantage over what came before and that he must evolve this talent to aid his survival. That means he has to start looking for techniques that enhance his IQ because at the moment I think he is far to dumb to save himself. Global climate change is a very complex problem and its getting more complex. That means the IQ required to comprehend fully and solve fully the problem is also increasing. If it gets beyond us were screwed.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Its not that I disagree with an exploration of space its just that I think we are bothering with it 1000 years or so to early. Its well and good to say "Isnt it great that we have been so smart to point cameras at ourselves from space so we can google at ourselves" but thats a hell of a lot of money to spend on entertainment expenses.

 

If not now, when? If not you, who? If not for this reason, why not? It's an eternal "not yet, in a decade."

 

You're applying the same reasoning to space exploration that (people) get mad at folks for applying to the environment. "We'll have X, when it's economically viable." (replace X with fuel cells, electric cars, or moon colonies, it doesn't matter. Replace "economically viable" with whatever reason for waiting you need.)

 

Point being - there is seldom a good reason to wait to do a good deed.

 

PS - and I don't get the last bit of your post. Are you suggesting using the Amazon basin as a kind of biological computer?

 

TFS

[InfiniteNow]

rant

2 entries found for rant.

To select an entry, click on it.

rant[1,verb]rant[2,noun]

 

Main Entry: 1rant

Pronunciation: 'rant

Function: verb

Etymology: obsolete Dutch ranten, randen

intransitive senses

1 : to talk in a noisy, excited, or declamatory manner

2 : to scold vehemently

transitive senses : to utter in a bombastic declamatory fashion

- rant·er noun

- rant·ing·ly /'ran-ti[ng]-lE/ adverb

[TheFaithfulStone]

rant

 

:(

 

guilty as charged. I throw myself on the mercy of the court.

 

tfs

 

edit: that's a totally in appropriate smiley isn't it? i couldn't find a :sheepish: one.

[InfiniteNow]

guilty as charged. I throw myself on the mercy of the court.

 

tfs

LOL.. :( I was actually referring to the post immediately previous to yours... #25.

 

 

If you didn't rant, we must recant...

[InfiniteNow]

It will take more than one human at the top to make the change. However, if that one human were a true leader with a vision that made sense to all, whose belief was supported with evidence and facts and intelligence, then others would follow. However, let me ask you, why should I care if a gay couple gets married when we are destroying our home... a home we share with EVERY other life form that you have EVER heard of in ALL of history?

 

We are but a "Pale Blue Dot" <Carl Sagan> in "a moat of dust in one tiny corner of the universe..." but it's our dot, and it's all we have.

When the Voyager mission reached to the distance of Pluto, Carl Sagan and others rallied to have the Voyager cameras turned back on Earth to snap a shot before exiting our solar system. After much resistance and various reluctance, it happened. The quote is what Carl Sagan had to say after seeing the photo.

 

Here's a link containing the full quote:

http://obs.nineplanets.org/psc/pbd.html

[clapstyx]

Hey Number 25 was mine! lol

 

I think what we have here is a philosophical differenceof opinion.

 

On the one hand one of us is arguing that the survival strategy for mankind has to include escaping to another planet in another solar system. I on the other hand am arguing that our chances of long term survival are greeter if we use our limited talenst and resources to create a long term survival strategy that is based on Earth. Perhaps I would think differently if there was a nearby unihabited planet that was better that Earth but unless I missed the news none has been found. That means we would be choosing to move to a place that is less ideal and representitive of a lower survival probability.

 

Without wishing to bring NASA into this argument too much I do feel that for the times that we are now in our intellectual resources as well as our physical resources are being misplaced. For instance (and crucify me on the point if you feel its in your best interest to do so) it would seem to me that no one yet has developed a workable plan to solve the problem of global warming which is accelerating along with the rise of CO2 and the decreased size of our sequestration capacity. This would suggest to me that our first priority must be to work out this strategy (to solve the short term problem) and in the same process design a lifestyle and resource utilisation system that can be maintained into the foreseeble future. At our present rates of resource consumption even blind Freddy can see that we are in trouble because we are being too wasteful with them.

 

As I see it the interests of business, the consumer and the environment need to be made a party to the same successful symbiotic equation so that the actions of one aid the fortunes of the other. My reason for suggesting the labelling system is because this then creates the possibility of the consumer supporting the products and companies which have lower environmental cost ratios. If you tie this with a plan that allows manufacturers to offset their ratio's by investing (on a volume basis) in forest growth for instance they will then benefit from a greater level of market support and profitability by a consumer that looks to advance two of their personal objectives through that one simultaneous nexus point. If the company cant cut it in the modern world where we have to be especially concerned about how our decisions affect the ecosystem then so be it..the stronger and more suited to the times will prevail.

 

You know the old saying "theres no explanation for stupidity" well its all relative, someone with an IQ of 135 might think he is smart but a person with an IQ of 180 would consider him a moron.

[dad2bkmj]

According to www.algore-2000.org (archive), and confirmed by several independent sources, George W Bush scored 566 verbal, 640 math on his SATs. This would place him in roughly the 50 and 70 percentiles, respectively. To my knowledge, Bush was either never tested to obtain a Stanford-Binet IQ score, or this score is not publicly known.

 

By comparison, Al Gore scored 625 / 730, placing him in the 80 and 95 percentiles. He is said to have a SB IQ of 134, which would be 99+ percentile, however adult SB IQs are notoriously poorly administered, and of questionable statistical validity.

 

So, based on best evidence, G.W.Bush is of about average intelligence – neither a moron, nor particularly smart. He is almost certainly less smart than his opponent in the 2000 US presidential elections, proving the common wisdom that elections are not intelligence contests.

dont even get me started on Al Gore, one of my clients actually just had a stanford uni. honor his work for the original internet, i give him a hard time about Al Gore inventing the internet, its a sore spot for him.

[CraigD]

… someone with an IQ of 135 might think he is smart but a person with an IQ of 180 would consider him a moron.

clapstys closing remark illustrates the difficulty of using Stanford-Binet IQ scores in a meaningful manner, and how badly the statistic has been distorted by various test.

 

In its inception, the SB score is defined with mean=100, standard deviation=10, and is assumed to graph a normal probability distribution (“the bell curve”). Assuming a current world population of 6.45 billion, the single smartest human being on earth should have an IQ of 158. For a person to exist with an IQ of 180, the world population would need to be about 10 million times what it is now – or, assuming the present human population maintains an average of its current value, 10 million generations, or about 250 million years.

 

In short, if the SB score was statistically meaningful, and true to its original design, there would be about about 1.5 million people with IQs of 135 or above, but a person with an IQ of 180 almost certainly has never existed.

 

IQ scores were conceived of as a way of measuring the rate of mental development of elementary school children. Their use in comparing adult intelligence is questionable. The history of their use for adults is a chronicle of interesting and strongly opinioned, but fundamentally unscientific, people and institutions.

[TheFaithfulStone]

dont even get me started on Al Gore, one of my clients actually just had a stanford uni. honor his work for the original internet, i give him a hard time about Al Gore inventing the internet, its a sore spot for him.

 

You realize of course that Al Gore may not have invented the internet, but he certaintly got it paid for. So sayeth Vint Cerf.

 

Of course, you know that I have to admit that I was snookered by the media into believing that Al Gore was not a brilliant, thoughtful individual capable of being a truly great president. I didn't vote for him.

 

To this day, I kick myself in the <HONK> for that oversight.

 

TFS

 

http://www.sethf.com/gore/ This one is better and has better references.