Can an AI know what system is good for Society?

[WolfAU]

What?? So you are essentially saying we have unlimited resource capacity? And things like peak oil is false?

Pretty much... you do realise that we can synthetically create petroleum right? Just at present it is a prohibitively costly process. Like I said the problem is that old junk gets thrown onto garbage heaps... if we recycled at near 100% efficiency (almost all waste is converted back into usable materials to then be repurposed into useful materials), then we could do so for an incredible amount of time. Like I said I am strongly in favour of finding alternatives to petroleum, not only is it a pollutant, but costly, a finite resource, there are many issues with digging and transport as well as geopolitical issues (the Arabs have lots of the stuff, leading to wars and backroom deals).

Power shift? No I don't think so, unless you think science applied to society is a bad thing.

Hard to answer that question, the problem is science is a very powerful and poorly understood field, and as such laymen will naturally fear it (look at GM products, vaccines etc), as such an entire government based on it would NOT be trusted by its people.

 

[Bubbles]

WTF? You are putting bullshit words in my mouth asshole. When did I state anything about believing "Future robot" crap

...and we can feel safe in dismissing everything you post in reference to economics as ignorant nonsense. If you ever do say anything that's true, it is only an accident not based on sound reasoning.

LMAO You got that conclusion from a few posts?

I guess it is safe to say anything else you say is just ignorant nonsense based on too much assumptions.

Pretty much... you do realise that we can synthetically create petroleum right? Just at present it is a prohibitively costly process. Like I said the problem is that old junk gets thrown onto garbage heaps... if we recycled at near 100% efficiency (almost all waste is converted back into usable materials to then be repurposed into useful materials), then we could do so for an incredible amount of time. Like I said I am strongly in favour of finding alternatives to petroleum, not only is it a pollutant, but costly, a finite resource, there are many issues with digging and transport as well as geopolitical issues (the Arabs have lots of the stuff, leading to wars and backroom deals).

Do you realize it is retarded to do that? Even IF, and that is a BIG ASS IF, you were able to do that with 100% efficiency you are still not getting any new energy. Were would the energy to create the synthetic oil come from? and why the hell would you want to recreate oil if you already have an energy source? It is safe to say you are ignorant of Thermodynamics.

Now I could be wrong and your using oil as an example to create plastics...which BTW are recyclable themselves...So it would be stupid to do what you stated previously. But I'll give you a point there.

Back to your economic/doomsday insult. Here are a few things to consider.

Mainstream economics ignores/denies the biophysical budget constraints of unlimited economic growth and the possible outcomes of this denial. I don't need to explain this if you actually know economics.

If you don't think Peak oil, declining EROI, resource depletion, fresh water issues and so on are problems then it is good to say you are ignorant of what is going on in our world.

With all that in mind. It is safe to say you are very ignorant of pressing issues and follow up by saying I will ignore any other statements or questions you post unless you can actually show something worth responding to.

BYE

 

[Baranduin]

LOL

Mainstream economics ignores/denies the biophysical budget constraints of unlimited economic growth and the possible outcomes of this denial.

NCE ignores/denies the biophysical budget constraints of unlimited economic growth and the possible outcomes of this denial.

If you don't think Peak oil, declining EROI, resource depletion, fresh water issues and so on are problems then it is good to say you are ignorant of what is going on in our world.

I think personally that peak oil, declining EROI, resource depletion, fresh water issues and so on will dicate the rest of civilization's days, and few will care about valuing ecosystems services even as they become more necesssary.

Man, you should stop reading this. Unless you present other examples and show us how they work, without copying them so literally; that's something you certainly can do, because you are a genius on economics, am I wrong?

 

[WolfAU]

Do you realize it is retarded to do that? Even IF, and that is a BIG ASS IF, you were able to do that with 100% efficiency you are still not getting any new energy. [Where] would the energy to create the synthetic oil come from? and why the hell would you want to recreate oil if you already have an energy source? It is safe to say you are ignorant of Thermodynamics.

There are no words, there is only...

We're not getting any "new energy" and you accuse me of being ignorant of thermodynamics. Also considering humans (ie the Japanese around World War 2) have done so, I think its safe to say there is a reason to synthetically create oil. And for the record there are ways to create plastics without using oil (look up bioplastics), I'm just saying that we can create more oil, especially if there is pressure to research methods to improve the efficiency of production. As such my main issue with oil is that its not a clean energy source, and associated geopolitical factors.

If you don't think Peak oil, declining EROI, resource depletion, fresh water issues and so on are problems then it is good to say you are ignorant of what is going on in our world.

Projection? Most of these problems are easy enough to address and you will find we've already made tremendous progress on alot of those issues. However what I'm saying is "resource depletion" is a deceptive concept, considering things like building materials are not being "depleted", they're just sitting in landfills waiting for it to be financially viable to recycle them. People like you would have us run out onto the lawn yelling "THE SKY IS FALLING!"

With all that in mind. It is safe to say you are very ignorant of pressing issues and follow up by saying I will ignore any other statements or questions you post unless you can actually show something worth responding to.

Wow, words cannot express how little I care.

 

[Bubbles]

LMAO...Yes I did visit the site in the past. I'm sorry if it matched someones blog. It is plain Biophysical talk. DUH...Plain and simple.

I know a lot about it from the oil drum. Have you been to the oil drum website? It's all they talk about. Still, you need to copy and paste then google an argument to disprove another argument? C'mon. I'm sure you can do better than that.

We're not getting any "new energy" and you accuse me of being ignorant of thermodynamics. Also considering humans (ie the Japanese around World War 2) have done so, I think its safe to say there is a reason to synthetically create oil. And for the record there are ways to create plastics without using oil (look up bioplastics), I'm just saying that we can create more oil, especially if there is pressure to research methods to improve the efficiency of production. As such my main issue with oil is that its not a clean energy source, and associated geopolitical factors.

Okay, fair enough, I wrote it stupidly. You won't increase energy output than what you put into it. I wanted you to get the point. Thanks for the bioplastics, will look into it.

Projection? Most of these problems are easy enough to address and you will find we've already made tremendous progress on alot of those issues. However what I'm saying is "resource depletion" is a deceptive concept, considering things like building materials are not being "depleted", they're just sitting in landfills waiting for it to be financially viable to recycle them. People like you would have us run out onto the lawn yelling "THE SKY IS FALLING!"

How so on oil?...we've peaked even with imports for about a year. Water?....you're joking for sure on this one.. Fisheries?....Hmmm don't see any improvement their. Agriculture? seeing major problems with new weeds destroying crops.

Projections for major problems are around 2030...these are Major world problems though, at their peak.

It is better to have people kicking and screaming warning people than doing nothing until it's too late.

 

[Nogre]

they're just sitting in landfills waiting for it to be financially viable to recycle them.

I'd like to see a major research group or company that's actually working on this. Because I haven't heard of anyone looking onto something like this.

People like you would have us run out onto the lawn yelling "THE SKY IS FALLING!"

Uh...no. Peak resources (oil is just one example) is a serious issue, and shouldn't be dismissed lightly. The solution isn't to panick. It's to begin working on the technology along the lines of what you've already mentioned. These things aren't reason to reject the concern; they're a result of the concern. The question is: are we doing enough work fast enough to avoid hitting the brick wall of the very real resource problems we do have in our future? I don't claim to know (this is a question for serious scientists; not for these forums). But at the very least, these issues are not being given the attention they deserve in the media or politics. It should be given the right coverage, not taken to a crazed, conspiracy theory level, but it certainly merits more attention than I've seen it get.

 

[WolfAU]

I'd like to see a major research group or company that's actually working on this. Because I haven't heard of anyone looking onto something like this.

Depends at what level you mean by "looking into this", our knowledge of how to repurpose and breakdown various products (organic waste, plastics, metals), and making it more efficient and cheaper is improving. The main feature that I'm familiar with was research into the practicality of basically burning waste using something like a plasma torch, but this was decided that it was currently not cost effective. There are also microbes which are being used to breakdown things like some plastics and organic products, though I can't tell you much more about that other than they do exist (ie not in development, we currently do use them).

Uh...no. Peak resources (oil is just one example) is a serious issue, and shouldn't be dismissed lightly.

Agreed, however most people who run around saying "peak oil" do so not as an intellectual stance, but do so essentially as part of a doomsday cult, foretelling societies downfall in the next 10 years etc.

they're a result of the concern.

I would disagree with that statement. I really don't think things would've turned out that differently if we had not had the "green movement" etc. The main push for alternatives to oil has been itself, the cost of oil and the incentive of money should one group be the one to patent the new source of fuel.

are we doing enough work fast enough to avoid hitting the brick wall of the very real resource problems we do have in our future?

Depends how disasterous you define the "brick wall". It'll never get so bad as to basically shut down all local/international transport. Eventually we will hit a point where some alternative (ie biofuels, many academics I talk to say hydrogen power is a pipe dream) is sufficiently effective, and petrol products so expensive that we will switch over, but obviously even then there will be alot of room for improvement in production, fuel efficiency, more effective blends etc.

this is a question for serious scientists; not for these forums

Well there are some in the science field here, such as myself, I've down studies into microbes in the production of biofuels, which we're making good progress on (my field is mostly genes, microbes and biotechnology).

these issues are not being given the attention they deserve in the media or politics.

I would argue the complete opposite, that you hear about them everywhere you go, usually in the tone of "In 20 years, society will implode when fuel is $15 dollars a litre" type reports, which are simple fear mongering... If people want to give money to research into alternative fuels, go for it.

I would like to see individual consumers able to be "stocks" in research, ie I give $200 to research into an alternative fuel, and if it pays off I get some money back... Or alternatively I give $500 to research, and in exchange the knowledge becomes public domain (so we all get cheaper fuel afterwards). As such people could support whatever research they thing is most pressing.

 

[Nogre]

Depends at what level you mean by "looking into this", our knowledge of how to repurpose and breakdown various products (organic waste, plastics, metals), and making it more efficient and cheaper is improving. The main feature that I'm familiar with was research into the practicality of basically burning waste using something like a plasma torch, but this was decided that it was currently not cost effective. There are also microbes which are being used to breakdown things like some plastics and organic products, though I can't tell you much more about that other than they do exist (ie not in development, we currently do use them).

Well, the question, again, is "Is this enough? (See below for the issue of the brick wall.)

Agreed, however most people who run around saying "peak oil" do so not as an intellectual stance, but do so essentially as part of a doomsday cult, foretelling societies downfall in the next 10 years etc.

That's why I say "peak resources" because it's ludicrous to pretend that only oil has this problem. While peak resources can be specifically applied to energy (as detailed below), it applies to all resources.

I would disagree with that statement. I really don't think things would've turned out that differently if we had not had the "green movement" etc. The main push for alternatives to oil has been itself, the cost of oil and the incentive of money should one group be the one to patent the new source of fuel.

Okay...again, this largely comes down to what peak resources means, which I'm going to get to in just one second.

Depends how disasterous you define the "brick wall". It'll never get so bad as to basically shut down all local/international transport. Eventually we will hit a point where some alternative (ie biofuels, many academics I talk to say hydrogen power is a pipe dream) is sufficiently effective, and petrol products so expensive that we will switch over, but obviously even then there will be alot of room for improvement in production, fuel efficiency, more effective blends etc.

Okay, what peak resources really means is that it takes more energy to get some ammount of material than you can get out of that material. I.E.: it takes 1.1 barrels of oil to obtain 1 barrel. This is also true in other resources (even something simple like iron or copper), where we'll eventually run out of sources for it. We need to find a way to circulate anything we put out as waste back into being resources in order to not eventually hit peak resources. Basically, nature has it right. In nature, waste is a completely relative thing. To us, CO2 is waste and O2 is necessary for life. To plants, CO2 is necessary for life and O2 is simple waste. Evolution did this. Anything that relied on a resource that would quickly be used up died off, while any time something came about in excess, even the smallest ability to use it was hugely beneficial (I.E.: O2 and the Cambrean explosion).

So you say we already have alternatives and will simply switch over when it's cost-effective. But the concern behind peak resources is that we need to have a renewable source of energy (and eventually all materials we use for anything) before we hit the peak. Otherwise, we're at the very least going to have some very serious issues.

Well there are some in the science field here, such as myself, I've down studies into microbes in the production of biofuels, which we're making good progress on (my field is mostly genes, microbes and biotechnology).

Ah, yes...I sometimes forget that. But I'm, unfortunately, just an undergraduate working on biomedical engineering, so I won't be involved with biofuels anytime soon. Either way, the feasibility of these sorts of things isn't something I'm extremely well-aquainted with. I'm just expressing concern, since we need to make sure that we can handle the peak.

I would argue the complete opposite, that you hear about them everywhere you go, usually in the tone of "In 20 years, society will implode when fuel is $15 dollars a litre" type reports, which are simple fear mongering... If people want to give money to research into alternative fuels, go for it.

Well, that's a possiblity, and frightening despite the long odds. But this necessitates action, meaning governmental funding for efforts to develop these new fuels. At risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist, oil companies have a bit too much power, so I don't think there's as much investment in this new technology as would be intelligent, simply because oil is such a profitable bussiness. (And before someone goes off about what I've said in the past about pharmeceutical companies, I would completely adovocate similar funding for independent researchers developing and testing drugs. Monopolies and exceedingly big businesses are things we need to tread carefully with, but that doesn't mean we should be going crazy about them; just try to reduce their power by evening the odds a little.)

I would like to see individual consumers able to be "stocks" in research, ie I give $200 to research into an alternative fuel, and if it pays off I get some money back... Or alternatively I give $500 to research, and in exchange the knowledge becomes public domain (so we all get cheaper fuel afterwards). As such people could support whatever research they thing is most pressing.

I'd invest my money in stuff like that. It would be cool if there were mutual funds out there that focused on private research efforts on social and medicinal issues. I'd be all over that option, as it would give me a chance to contribute to fellow scientists in the fields I won't be working in (that is, once I have money to invest and save...I'm kind of stuck as a poor college student at the moment :lol: ).

Anyway, we have gotten rather off subject...that seems to happen a lot around here.

 

[WolfAU]

Well, the question, again, is "Is this enough? (See below for the issue of the brick wall.)

In some ways we've already hit a brick wall, obviously how disasterous the effects will be of not finding alternative fuels or addressing issues of pollution/waste will vary depending on what your criteria is for such a catastrophy. Re the issue of fuel, my cut off mark would be international flight becoming something no long practical for ordinary use (ie overseas travel), which would have a disasterous effect on many things including trade and tourism.

That's why I say "peak resources" because it's ludicrous to pretend that only oil has this problem. While peak resources can be specifically applied to energy (as detailed below), it applies to all resources.

Again, you're associating a specific resource or means of energy production with energy. Example; while I'm not advocating solar energy (though all evidence suggests that with research it will become more efficient and cheaper to produce), there is obviously no finite resource associated with it, with the exception that is our sun has a finite lifespan. Also should hydrogen fuel prove practical, that is also not going to run out any time soon.

But the concern behind peak resources is that we need to have a renewable source of energy (and eventually all materials we use for anything) before we hit the peak. Otherwise, we're at the very least going to have some very serious issues.

Define "peak", define "serious issues", if we switched tomorrow many would argue "serious issues" were had, and if we switched tomorrow, the alternatives are not practical enough yet for mass use, and as such would have to be rushed to that stage, creating "serious issues".

But this necessitates action, meaning governmental funding for efforts to develop these new fuels.

In a capitalistic society, there are alot of problems with what you're suggesting... as the main motivator for alternative fuels is the financial incentives rather than us doing it largely for charitable reasons. Also its a global issue, which means all countries should be obligated to contribute an equal % of their GDP to its research under an international organisation (and that raises the question, what do they do once this knowledge exists... would its patents be considered public domain?)

This, like many other issues, demonstrates the weakness of our current system (democracy = politicians main goal is to APPEAR to do something, and really do nothing, save maintaining the "status quo"), as such we like to tell ourselves its a grass roots issue, but it isn't really. All we can really do is push for laws such as demanding more fuel efficient cars and buying products from companies that switch over to more "green" production methods.

Anyway, we have gotten rather off subject...that seems to happen a lot around here.

The initial topic sucked.