I suspect that the confederate flags and guns were a poorly specified way to say “Republican.” Obviously there are some Republicans who are part of the community, and even more conservatives in general, but a significant portion of the community is gay and trans, two groups that are often discriminated against in more conservative areas of the USA. That portion of the group seems to be even more prevalent in the Bay Area community. The concern, to me at least, is not difference of thought, but rather being discriminated against.
Hm, when I was making the excluding-2020 graph I was intending to include 2019 as well, but it might have been taken out accidentally.
That makes more sense—there would be more land on fire, but the fires would be weak fires, not the destructive fires that we’re getting now.
Huh wild. I guess I have heard about redwood trees surviving forest fires, so that makes some sense, but man those’d be some big fires.
Looking at the acres of forest burned over the last twenty years:
It’s been going up significantly over time—the trend-line goes from about 500k acres in 2000 to 1.5M acres in 2020, making me doubt a regression to the mean. Even excluding 2020, the trend-line goes from less than 500k acres in 2000 to about 1.1M acres in 2019. I’m expecting more years like this one in the future, although hopefully not quite as bad.
(data from Wikipedia)
Per the Wikipedia page this year more than 3% of the state has burned (and it’s continuing to burn), and thus a good deal more than 3% of the forestable land area has burned. Unless all the forests burned every 20-30 years, this would suggest that this year was significantly more than the historic average. Given that the past decade has averaged about 1 million acres, and the state is about 100 million acres, and not all the state is able to be forested, I’d guess that the last decade’s averages have been at least around the historic average if not more.
The bigger point is that once again we have two distinct versions of ‘scientific consensus’ about what’s going on with these fires.
Perhaps it’s all my filter bubble, but what I’m hearing democrats say is that the issue is caused by a history of mismanagement combined with climate change. After all, the mismanagement hasn’t changed significantly over the last twenty years, but the fires have gotten significantly worse over the last twenty-thirty years. The people I know who have lived in California for the last fifty years have talked about how until the mid-90s, they didn’t hear about wildfires at all, and since then it’s significantly gone up. Looking at the list of twenty largest fires since 1932, ten are since 2010 and an additional seven were between 2000 and 2010. Only three were before 2000. Graphing the acres burned over time since 2000 shows a clear increase, and that remains even if you remove this year’s fires.
Obviously there’s more time for brush to accumulate, but as other comments have mentioned, the fires burning have removed some of that brush, taking away fuel, so that’s likely close to a wash, and I doubt that it could explain an increase of 3x on the trend-line.
Overall, climate change seems like a necessary cause for these fires, even if not a sufficient one. Of course, the mismanagement is also a necessary cause—and I’ve certainly seen plenty of left-leaning leaders blaming California for that—but keeping both causes in mind is important, especially when one issue is local to California and the other issue is global.
My understanding is that the permanent damage occurs to much of the same degree in people who don’t show any symptoms (and are of course, not treated).
I always interpreted “The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.” as saying that this is one way that the rich become richer. I don’t think anyone doubts that rich people either have higher income or start with a lot of money. But then they also have these structural advantages that help them be “so rich.” The “ghetto tax” is one place, but then there’s everything else—less stress, for instance, or being able to pay for education. Boots theory isn’t just spending less money, although that’s what he describes, but every place where rich people are able to become richer because they have more money to start out with.
You both seem to be assuming that competitive pressures from other governments is what causes current governments to be stable. However, that seems pretty unlikely to me. I doubt the US government would be significantly different, even if there was no ability for other governments to compete with the US at all (eg. no migration, no trade, no military). After all, how does the US government currently compete? Obviously with the military, but the US government isn’t becoming less corrupt to avoid being out competed with the military. Aside from that, migration seems to be the main way, and if anything the US government attempts to be less fit in that regard.
The forces that keep it stable are rather entirely internal. Similarly, a world government would be kept stable through the forces of politics—presumably some form of democracy.
That’s definitely how it was taught in my high school, so it’s not unknown.
Sorry, let me amend my statement to “every adult human not in a coma”
Wait, what ? Ahm, can I ask for source on that ?
Wait, what ? Ahm, can I ask for source on that ?
I’m taking it as granted that every human not in a coma can suffer, which I hope is uncontroversial. There are also many people who have an intellectual disability such that they don’t seem to be mentally capable of reasoning about death. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51532566_Concept_of_death_and_perceptions_of_bereavement_in_adults_with_intellectual_disabilities says that of the patients surveyed, which excluded people with a severe intellectual disability, 6% had a limited understanding of death, which I presume is a prerequisite for a concept of suicide. They also say that “many take a fatalistic view of death and believe that death only applies to the old or sick” and that many don’t believe that it can happen to them, both of which seem like issues for having a concept of suicide.
I think that your argument for “The animals we farm lack any concepts of suffering and joy similar to ours” is seriously lacking. The cruxes are (roughly) “if they have the mental ability to choose to commit suicide but don’t, then their lives are worth living” and “if they don’t have the mental ability to choose to commit suicide, they don’t have high level reasoning and therefore don’t suffer.”
The first point seems fallacious, since most factory farmed animals don’t have the physical ability to commit suicide.
As for the second point, making assumptions about their mental perception of suffering based on their cognitive capacity for certain unrelated tasks (ie. ability to conceptualize suicide and death) seems obviously wrong to me. There are many humans who don’t have the ability to reason about suicide but undoubtedly suffer. I’d say that most factory farmed animals likely don’t have the mental ability to do the reasoning of “if I do X action, it will cause me to die, which will end the pain,” but they still have very obvious levels of suffering.
Debatably the US is a merged country (originally a confederacy of independent states, decided to bind themselves together). Similarly, you could say that the EU is. The USSR’s control over a number of smaller states (eg. Poland, East Germany) could count as well.
Generally though, I’d say that the incentives are against it on multiple levels. The politicians are against it because they’d lose some level of power, unless it’s a complete takeover, in which case the other side is losing significant power. The bureaucrats are against it because combining country-wide systems would be very difficult. And the people are against it because of nationalism and the intersection of nationalism and ethnic groups. Many Americans wouldn’t want to merge with Mexico because they want to be separate from the Mexicans. Most Serbians want to have their own country separate from the Croatians’ country. People like self-determination.
This issue seems to be relevant for humans too
If base-10 and base-8 arithmetic were equally common in the corpus then I don’t think it could do arithmetic very well either, though again, maybe it can distinguish them from context. But if it doesn’t know the context, it would just guess randomly.
If we were in this world, then humans would be in the same spot. If there’s no context to distinguish between the two types of arithmetic, they’d have to choose randomly or rely on some outside knowledge (which could theoretically be learned from the internet). Similarly, if we have two variants of chess that are the same until the end game, humans would have to predecide what version they’re playing.
Humans certainly aren’t perfectly repeatable either—if you ask a person a question, the manner in which they respond would probably be different from if you asked them the same question the next day.
Despite that, we have a lot more knowledge about the way the world is structured than even GPT-3 does, so none of these are issues.
One issue is that you seem to be equivocating between increasing your personal income to more-than-a-base-level-of-$90000 and increasing your personal income to help solve immortality. I think we can safely say that achieving clinical-immortality is something that will take significant amounts of resources—trillions of dollars worth at the bare minimum. (Cancer research seems to be about $50B/yr right now and that’s only one small part of achieving clinical immortality.) Suppose I stress myself for the rest of my non-immortal life (say, for 50 years) to earn $190,000/yr, in the hopes of achieving immortality before I die of old age. This is a stretch in a lot of cases. Taking out the base level of income for happiness, this gives a total lifetime extra income of $5M.
Assuming that all of that is donated towards the cause of developing immortality, what effect does that extra income have towards achieving personal immortality? This is impossible to calculate, but I’d assume a very small effect, since it is only about one one-millionth of the funding needed. As a rough estimate, I’ll assume that donating all of that toward immortality research gets you an extra one one-millionth chance of becoming clinically immortal, which seems possibly too generous since if the research finishes the year after you die, you get nothing (modulo cryonics). If you assume that an immortal person will live for a million years on average, then this means that dedicating your life to immortality research donation gets you one extra expected year of lifespan. Of course, all of these numbers of very arbitrary and include assumptions, but I think it gives the right magnitude of expected value.
Contributing toward solving immortality is a wonderful and noble thing, but the personal benefit to an extra donation seems to be low—significantly lower than the personal cost of giving that donation.
Interestingly, the “turning the frogs gay” thing was actually related to a real scientific study that showed real effects (including castration) of certain chemicals on frogs. However, Alex Jones was trying to say that this somehow was an evil government plot to turn humans gay, which it isn’t.
From my understanding of the definition of causality, any action made in this moment cannot affect anywhere that is causally-disconnected from where and when we are. After all, if it could then that region definitionally. wouldn’t be causally disconnected from us.
Are you referring to multiple future regions that are causally connected to the Earth at the current moment but are causally disconnected from each other?
To be honest, I’m not a statistician and I don’t know the difference between correlated and uncorrelated errors. But that exactly proves my point. You’re using arguments that only physicists and statisticians can debate with language that only they know to try to convince laypeople. Unfortunately, that’s the nature of the internet.