Pascal's Wager and Global Warming

[Nick Thompson]

All,

The best argument for worrying about global warming presented so far in
this interesting correspondence is the one that says it costs us relatively
little to worry about it and and costs us LOT if we dont.  

Sort of like Pascal's argument for prayer, right?

I do worry about complexity thinking leading to fatalism.  If a goddamned
butterfly can cause a climate crash, why take responsibility for ANYTHING
we do.  We should all be dionysians.  

Nick

> [Original Message]
> From: <friam-request at redfish.com>
> To: <friam at redfish.com>
> Date: 8/13/2007 10:07:12 AM
> Subject: Friam Digest, Vol 50, Issue 16
>
> Send Friam mailing list submissions to
> friam at redfish.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> friam-request at redfish.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> friam-owner at redfish.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Friam digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: Edge: The Need for Heretics (Roger Critchlow)
>    2. Re: Edge: The Need for Heretics (Owen Densmore)
>    3. Re: Edge: The Need for Heretics (David Mirly)
>    4. Book trade. (Marko A. Rodriguez)
>    5. Re: Book trade. (David Mirly)
>    6. Re: Edge: The Need for Heretics (Marcus G. Daniels)
>    7. Re: Edge: The Need for Heretics (Roger Critchlow)
>    8. Re: Edge: The Need for Heretics (Hywel White)
>    9. Re: Edge: The Need for Heretics (Hywel White)
>   10. Re: Book trade. (Marcus G. Daniels)
>   11. Re: ...like replacing a star with it's 'sparkle' (Phil Henshaw)
>   12. Re: Edge: The Need for Heretics (Phil Henshaw)
>   13. Re: Edge: The Need for Heretics (Phil Henshaw)
>   14. Re: Edge: The Need for Heretics (Phil Henshaw)
>   15. Re: Book trade. (Carl Tollander)
>   16. Re: Friam Digest, Vol 50, Issue 15 (Nicholas Thompson)
>   17. Re: Edge: The Need for Heretics (Owen Densmore)
>   18. Re: Friam Digest, Vol 50, Issue 15 (Nicholas Thompson)
>   19. Re: Edge: The Need for Heretics (David Mirly)
>   20. Re: Edge: The Need for Heretics (David Breecker)
>   21. Re: Edge: The Need for Heretics (PPARYSKI at aol.com)
>   22. Re: Edge: The Need for Heretics (PPARYSKI at aol.com)
>   23. Re: Friam Digest, Vol 50, Issue 15 (Phil Henshaw)
>   24. Re: Edge: The Need for Heretics (Phil Henshaw)
>   25. Re: Friam Digest, Vol 50, Issue 15 (Russell Standish)
>   26. Re: Book trade. (steve smith)
>   27. Science and Action (David Breecker)
>   28. ** reminder today** Lecture Monday, August 13 10:30a: Rob
>       Axtell - Informal Chat on Agent-Based Modeling and Generative
>       Social Science (Stephen Guerin)
>   29. Re: Science and Action (Marcus G. Daniels)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 10:17:48 -0600
> From: "Roger Critchlow" <rec at elf.org>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Edge: The Need for Heretics
> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group"
> <friam at redfish.com>
> Message-ID:
> <66d1c98f0708120917l32f527bbsfed44f9366e970a1 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> On 8/12/07, Robert Holmes <robert at holmesacosta.com> wrote:
> >
> > The Copenhagen Consensus is a Danish think-tank that gets economists and
> > politicians to address the question "in a world of limited resources,

if we
> > cannot do everything at once what should we do first?". The top-4
ratings

> > from their 2006 meeting are:
>
>
>  The Copenhagen Consensus is a centre of the Copenhagen Danish Business
> School which brings together economists and subject matter experts to do
> cost-benefit analysis on problems and proposed solutions and rank the
> proposed solutions.  As they say:
>
> If the world would come together and be willing to spend, say, $50 billion
> EXTRA over the next five years on improving the state of the world, which
> projects would yield the greatest net benefits?
>
> Well, they obviously have to stay within their budget.  Googling "climate
> change cost" popped up a CNN article which estimated $60 billion in

natural
> disaster costs for the year 2003, up 10% from the previous year.  The UNEP
> issued a report in 2002 estimating that costs for natural disasters could
> reach $150 billion per year by 2012.  The maligned Stern report of last
fall
> estimated costs of climate change at 3.68 trillion pounds.
>
> Kim Stanley Robinson has a three book series, 40 days of rain, 50 degrees
> below, 60 days and counting, set in a near future that includes some
lovely
> science fiction estimates of the cost of climate remediation.  How much
salt
> do you need to throw into the North Atlantic to restart the Gulf Stream?
> How much water do you have to pump out of the oceans to keep sea level
from
> flooding the major population centers on the coasts?
>
> The deniers have an undeniable interest in maintaining status quo, they do
> well at what they do, it makes them the most powerful people in the world,
> the moment they admit there is a problem, they're bankrupt.
>
> Capitalism works by dumping external costs until forced to account for
them,
> then they have to redo the spreadsheets, what a bother.
>
> -- rec --
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070812/0c712c61
/attachment-0001.html

>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 10:20:47 -0600
> From: Owen Densmore <owen at backspaces.net>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Edge: The Need for Heretics
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> <friam at redfish.com>
> Message-ID: <4DFE7558-918B-4502-8EA6-E64C4BE250FC at backspaces.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
>
> What an interesting list!  Note that the same Challenge may occur  
> multiple times due to a different Opportunity (solution).  
> Communicable Diseases occurs 3 times and Malnutrition and Hunger 4  
> times, for example.  That's good, makes the list specific solution  
> oriented, thus clearer on cost of individual solutions, not broad  
> problems.
>
> One way to look at potential effectiveness of a given Opportunity is  
> whether or not it is sustainable solely by local resources, the old  
> "teach to fish, don't give fish" realization.  In other words, giving  
> away $$ is best done in such a way that the initial effort is locally  
> sustainable afterwards.
>
> The list doesn't fair well, IMHO, in this regard.  Look at number one:
>      Communicable Diseases    Scaled-up basic health services
> I'm not sure that paying for scaled up health services produces  
> better health services down the line.  It might if education were  
> built-in.
>
> But then, if sustainability were built into the solutions, it might  
> all work.  Great list!
>
>      -- Owen
>
>
> On Aug 12, 2007, at 8:05 AM, Robert Holmes wrote:
>
> > The Copenhagen Consensus is a Danish think-tank that gets  
> > economists and politicians to address the question "in a world of  
> > limited resources, if we cannot do everything at once what should  
> > we do first?". The top-4 ratings from their 2006 meeting are:
> > communicable diseases
> > sanitation and water
> > education
> > malnutrition and hunger
> > Climate change slips from #10 (its position at the first CC meeting  
> > in 2004) to #27. (Full list at: http://tinyurl.com/39udey)
> >
> > What's your take on this people? Part of me wants to reject this as  
> > the ravings of right-wing Kyoto-protocol-hating ideologues. But  
> > then the rational part of me recognizes that you probably do get  
> > far more bang for your buck (in social welfare terms) with these  
> > problems: they are (relatively) well understood and interventions  
> > have a rapid effect on a huge number of people. In contrast,  
> > climate control is poorly understood and it takes decades to  
> > measure the effect. Where would you put your limited $$?
> >
> > Robert
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ============================================================
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 09:33:24 -0700
> From: David Mirly <mirly at comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Edge: The Need for Heretics
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> <friam at redfish.com>
> Message-ID: <49222209-BA6A-4EF8-BA2E-C5487E503B71 at comcast.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
>
> I can't remember the source (sorry) but I do remember some "expert"  
> saying that the problem isn't just that the climate
> is warming.  We've already pointed out the the Earth has been much  
> hotter than it is now.  He said the problem is that
> it is warming up too fast (because of human activity) and the  
> ecosystem isn't able to adapt as fast.  He gave specific examples
> including the current average temperature rate change at various  
> latitudes and correlated that with the migration speed of plants,
> insects, etc. and said the additional velocity we have added makes  
> the temperature change outpace the migration speed of the
> organisms.
>
> On the other hand, the Earth has gone through significant climate  
> changes before and life has a way of adapting and surviving.  The  
> problem
> from some peoples perspective is that the surviving organisms may not  
> include humans.  For others, that might not be a problem.  ;)
>
> Personally I have enough "evidence" to have the following conclusions.
>
> 1) The Earth's climate is changing at a rate that we can observe in  
> our lifetime or at least observe within a couple of generations or so.
> 2) It would be wise to attempt to minimize our impacts on such a  
> complex system when we don't even partially understand the consequences.
> 3) As a whole we are not interested and/or too stupid to minimize our  
> impact.  At least until it's too late.
>
>
>
> On Aug 12, 2007, at 8:09 AM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote:
>
> > Robert Holmes wrote:
> >> But then the rational part of me recognizes that you probably do get
> >> far more bang for your buck (in social welfare terms) with these
> >> problems: they are (relatively) well understood and interventions  
> >> have
> >> a rapid effect on a huge number of people. In contrast, climate
> >> control is poorly understood and it takes decades to measure the
> >> effect. Where would you put your limited $$?
> > It depends what's measured.  Climate control may be hard to measure  
> > and
> > correlate to mitigation efforts but output of CO2 can be identified,
> > measured, and mitigated.
> > Further it matters what the question is.   For example, if someone  
> > owns
> > valuable coastal property that risks being underwater in a century,  
> > they
> > might well care about the impact on their grandkids more than what
> > happens to someone they don't know on the other side of the planet.
> >
> >
> > ============================================================
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 10:49:35 -0600
> From: "Marko A. Rodriguez" <marko at lanl.gov>
> Subject: [FRIAM] Book trade.
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> <friam at redfish.com>
> Message-ID: <82E2D80B-1EB7-4505-A125-210AD16C109F at lanl.gov>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Hello,
>
> Does anyone read Greg Egan (Australian Sci-Fi author)? If so, does  
> anyone have any of his books that are NOT:
>
> Permutation City
> Teranesia
> Schilde's Ladder
>
> Most of his books seem to be out of print and are super expensive on  
> Amazon. If anyone would like to do some book trading for Greg Egan,  
> it would make me happy.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Marko A. Rodriguez
> Los Alamos National Laboratory (P362-proto)
> Los Alamos, NM 87545
> Phone [phone]
> http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~okram
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:

http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070812/87d07264
/attachment-0001.html

>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 10:11:44 -0700
> From: David Mirly <mirly at comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Book trade.
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> <friam at redfish.com>
> Message-ID: <ED7C7918-DA1A-4C6D-8A72-DD21638A6357 at comcast.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Try powells.com.
>
> If you aren't set on owning, your library has the best price of all.  
> And if they don't have
> a particular title, they will get it from another library somewhere.
>
>
> On Aug 12, 2007, at 9:49 AM, Marko A. Rodriguez wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > Does anyone read Greg Egan (Australian Sci-Fi author)? If so, does  
> > anyone have any of his books that are NOT:
> >
> > Permutation City
> > Teranesia
> > Schilde's Ladder
> >
> > Most of his books seem to be out of print and are super expensive  
> > on Amazon. If anyone would like to do some book trading for Greg  
> > Egan, it would make me happy.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Marko A. Rodriguez
> > Los Alamos National Laboratory (P362-proto)
> > Los Alamos, NM 87545
> > Phone [phone]
> > http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~okram
> >
> >
> > ============================================================
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:

http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070812/0cd006a0
/attachment-0001.html

>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 11:54:07 -0600
> From: "Marcus G. Daniels" <marcus at snoutfarm.com>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Edge: The Need for Heretics
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> <friam at redfish.com>
> Message-ID: <46BF493F.5030700 at snoutfarm.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Dyson writes:
> > To stop the carbon in the atmosphere from increasing, we only need to
> > grow the biomass in the soil by a hundredth of an inch per year. Good
> > topsoil contains about ten percent biomass, [Schlesinger, 1977], so a
> > hundredth of an inch of biomass growth means about a tenth of an inch
> > of topsoil.
> Unfortunate, then, in the U.S., we are losing 1.8 billion tons of soil a
> year.
>
> http://soils.usda.gov/sqi/concepts/soil_organic_matter/som_manage.html
>
> ..and that even under ideal agricultural conditions, it takes about 3
> years to form one tenth of an inch of topsoil:
>
> http://home.alltel.net/bsundquist1/se3.html#A
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 12:07:54 -0600
> From: "Roger Critchlow" <rec at elf.org>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Edge: The Need for Heretics
> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group"
> <friam at redfish.com>
> Message-ID:
> <66d1c98f0708121107w3a780cbfw6384c47dec08a712 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> On 8/12/07, David Mirly <mirly at comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > 2) It would be wise to attempt to minimize our impacts on such a
> > complex system when we don't even partially understand the consequences.
>
>
> Just to beat on the defenders of the status quo some more, their rationale
> for denying climate change and not messing with the economy is essentially
> the same:  it, the economy, is a complex system where we don't even
> partially understand the consequences of even small changes, so it would

be
> wise to minimize our impacts on it.
>
> So we have the same rhetoric of conservatism on both sides of the
question.
>
> -- rec --
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070812/1b3d3620
/attachment-0001.html

>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 12:51:03 -0700
> From: "Hywel White" <hywelwhite at motivity.com>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Edge: The Need for Heretics
> To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'"
> <friam at redfish.com>
> Message-ID: <001801c7dd1a$1d5079d0$6401a8c0 at desktop>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Owen, I read the Freeman Dyson item you pointed out.  What impressed me

most
> was how much we agreed.  Waw!  Hywel
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: friam-bounces at redfish.com [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On
Behalf

> Of Owen Densmore
> Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2007 9:19 AM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: [FRIAM] Edge: The Need for Heretics
>
> This from the Edge: Freeman Dyson talking about the need for heretics  
> in science:
> <http://www.edge.org/documents/archive/edge219.html#dysonf>
>
> Interestingly enough, his first shot is at global warming!
>
> But the real story is that he want's *young* heretics, not old ones.  
> Plenty of them and they are ignored.  Feel fee to volunteer to be  
> either kind.
>
>      -- Owen
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 12:52:12 -0700
> From: "Hywel White" <hywelwhite at motivity.com>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Edge: The Need for Heretics
> To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'"
> <friam at redfish.com>
> Message-ID: <001901c7dd1a$466ec060$6401a8c0 at desktop>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Paul, I'm afraid I agreed with him almost entirely.  Hywel
>
>  
>
>   _____  
>
> From: friam-bounces at redfish.com [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On

Behalf
> Of PPARYSKI at aol.com
> Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2007 1:49 PM
> To: friam at redfish.com
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Edge: The Need for Heretics
>
>  
>
> Certainly there is a need for heretics and I consider myself a minor
heretic
> and mystic outlaw, but to deny the reality of global warming/climate
change
> is just stupid.  Freeman should look outside himself and look at the
latest

> IPCC reports and the NSIC report which Nick (and others) have circulated.
> It's not outside and extreme weather is global.
>
> Paul
>
>  
>
>  
>
>
>
>
>
>   _____  
>
> Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com
> <http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour/?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000982> .
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:

http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070812/ee83ebb9
/attachment-0001.html

>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 12:56:40 -0600
> From: "Marcus G. Daniels" <marcus at snoutfarm.com>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Book trade.
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> <friam at redfish.com>
> Message-ID: <46BF57E8.2010406 at snoutfarm.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Marko A. Rodriguez wrote:
> > Does anyone read Greg Egan (Australian Sci-Fi author)? If so, does
> > anyone have any of his books that are NOT:
> fwiw, looks like Mesa public library in Los Alamos has it on the shelf.
>
> 1) Go to http://www.santafelibrary.org
> 2) Put in "egan greg" in the catalog quick search with Author
> 3) Then click on WorldCat icon at the bottom of the page
> 4) Click on a title you want
> 5) enter your zip code in the "Enter Location Information" box
> 6) Click on "Book" link for a desirable location
>
> If you have Santa Fe library card, you have one sent to a Santa Fe
> branch, but you'd have to call.
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 15:16:41 -0400
> From: "Phil Henshaw" <sy at synapse9.com>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] ...like replacing a star with it's 'sparkle'
> To: "'Prof David West'" <profwest at fastmail.fm>, "'The Friday Morning
> Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" <friam at redfish.com>
> Message-ID: <004b01c7dd15$50b920b0$6402a8c0 at SavyII>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> Yes, it is intended to break with the idea that what we see, the
> information content of things, is what there is.    I interpret the
> common experience that 1) the horizon of information almost always moves
> with exploration in the particular ways you'd expect if physical things
> existed beyond your awareness, and 2) physical systems therefore also
> operate without information, as evidence that physical things exist.
>
>
> Phil Henshaw                       ????.?? ? `?.????
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 680 Ft. Washington Ave
> NY NY 10040                      
> tel: [phone]                
> e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com          
> explorations: www.synapse9.com    
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Prof David West [mailto:profwest at fastmail.fm]
> > Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 2:40 PM
> > To: sy at synapse9.com; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity
> > Coffee Group
> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] ...like replacing a star with it's 'sparkle'
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 07:18:26 -0400, "Phil Henshaw" <sy at synapse9.com>
> > said:
> > >
> >  
> > > The reason is that our minds only have the ability to take
> > in and send
> > > out information.  That's better than nothing, but because our minds
> > > can't take in and send out the physical things of the
> > world, nature's
> > > complex physical designs are naturally hidden from our
> > awareness.   The
> > > physical world is naturally 'dark matter' for us, and carefully
> > > discovering and tracing threads of connection in that
> > 'void' located
> > > beyond our information and our imagination, is our only way of
> > > patiently building a picture of what expanse of things are there.
> > >
> >
> > As a fan of good prose/poetry I find the above nicely
> > written.  As a "practicing mystic" I strongly disagree with
> > its content.  The definition of information and "physical
> > things" seem far too narrow. The paragraph suggests a
> > metaphysics based on the wrong metaphors - especially the
> > dualism of mind and out-there.
> >
> > dave west
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 12
> Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 15:28:07 -0400
> From: "Phil Henshaw" <sy at synapse9.com>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Edge: The Need for Heretics
> To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'"
> <friam at redfish.com>
> Message-ID: <004c01c7dd16$e98958e0$6402a8c0 at SavyII>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Robert,
> Conceptually speaking, anything is conceptually possible, and on that
> basis all the conditional biases you mention are meaningful and
> relevant.  Still, it's pretty obvious that the consumption of fossil
> fuels releases CO2 changes the transparency of the atmosphere to
> radiation.    The interesting part of the dispute is why there is one at
> all.   I think it's because we switch languages sometimes, with 'code
> word' political meanings in place of ordinary practical meanings.
> The issue seems to have little to do with the science.    The scientists
> know their models don't fully reflect the physical system, they also
> know their models have been getting incrementally better and better,
> continually reinforcing the atmospheric chemistry theory that goes into
> them.   Those are things a practical approach are based on, not cause
> and effect statements with all sorts of social overtones.
>  
>
> Phil Henshaw                       ????.?? ? `?.????
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 680 Ft. Washington Ave
> NY NY 10040                      
> tel: [phone]                
> e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com          
> explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/>    
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: friam-bounces at redfish.com [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On
> Behalf Of Douglas Roberts
> Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2007 10:01 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Edge: The Need for Heretics
>
>
> Owen,
>
> I find it quite refreshing to hear someone express the viewpoint that we
> simply don't know to what extent human activity effects global warming.
> My left-wing-nut friends all go batty on the subject, falling down on
> their knees to worship Al Gore when the subject comes up.  Even the
> smart ones are totally sold on the concept that humans caused the
> current global warming trend.  
>
> Anyone who claims to have figured out this particular global complex
> system and is stating with absolute certainty that humans are The Cause
> of the current climate trend goes down in my book as just a tad
> gullible.
>
> I concede that it is possible, perhaps even likely that humans are
> affecting the global climate.  But we certainly don't understand the
> global/celestial climate dynamic well enough to prove it.  I mean come
> on, for crying out loud:  we just discovered that neutrinos have mass.
> We think.
>
> --Doug
>
> --
> Doug Roberts, RTI International
> droberts at rti.org
> doug at parrot-farm.net
> 505-455-7333 - Office
> 505-670-8195 - Cell
>
>
> On 8/11/07, Owen Densmore <owen at backspaces.net> wrote:
>
>
> I have to agree .. in the sense that a SFI climate paleontologist
> couched the issue:
>    There is certainly a very recent correlation between CO2 and an
> upward trend in temperature.  But when one looks at multi-million
> year variations, we are actually in a cool area, and that the cause/
> effect between any human activity pales in comparison to things like
> meteor impacts and volcanic action.  Thus much of the buzz is likely
> very inaccurate and unfounded.  BUT, personally, there is certainly
> no reason to NOT minimize man's impact on the environment.
>
> I think when the dust settles (so to speak!) we'll find that we
> simply currently have no idea why the earth goes through ice ages and
> hot ages.  We may get hints if we really honestly try.  But I go
> along with the SFI researcher: it doesn't hurt to be cautious.
>
> Its interesting that there are large gas/oil reserves under the ice
> caps.  Yet how did that happen if these result from organic decay?
> Dyson also has an answer for that: there may be earth-core activities
> that contribute a great deal to oil.
>
>      -- Owen
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:

http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070812/dc968358
/attachment-0001.html

>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 13
> Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 15:32:27 -0400
> From: "Phil Henshaw" <sy at synapse9.com>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Edge: The Need for Heretics
> To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'"
> <friam at redfish.com>
> Message-ID: <005101c7dd17$877f9460$6402a8c0 at SavyII>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> daaa.... in a complex system don't we always do everything at once????
> Playing the opposition game with things that can only work all together
> is popular, of course.   I just don't think it works.
>  
>
> Phil Henshaw                       ????.?? ? `?.????
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 680 Ft. Washington Ave
> NY NY 10040                      
> tel: [phone]                
> e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com          
> explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/>    
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: friam-bounces at redfish.com [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On
> Behalf Of Robert Holmes
> Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2007 10:05 AM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Edge: The Need for Heretics
>
>
> The Copenhagen Consensus is a Danish think-tank that gets economists and
> politicians to address the question "in a world of limited resources, if
> we cannot do everything at once what should we do first?". The top-4
> ratings from their 2006 meeting are:
>
>
> 1. communicable diseases
>
> 2. sanitation and water
>
> 3. education
>
> 4. malnutrition and hunger
>
> Climate change slips from #10 (its position at the first CC meeting in
> 2004) to #27. (Full list at: http://tinyurl.com/39udey)
>
> What's your take on this people? Part of me wants to reject this as the
> ravings of right-wing Kyoto-protocol-hating ideologues. But then the
> rational part of me recognizes that you probably do get far more bang
> for your buck (in social welfare terms) with these problems: they are
> (relatively) well understood and interventions have a rapid effect on a
> huge number of people. In contrast, climate control is poorly understood
> and it takes decades to measure the effect. Where would you put your
> limited $$?
>
> Robert
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:

http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070812/4b9e5109
/attachment-0001.html

>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 14
> Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 15:49:15 -0400
> From: "Phil Henshaw" <sy at synapse9.com>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Edge: The Need for Heretics
> To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'"
> <friam at redfish.com>, <owen at backspaces.net>
> Message-ID: <005601c7dd19$dd801c70$6402a8c0 at SavyII>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> Owen,
> To revise my reply on little nukes, saying they are better than the
> others, but asking if you used 'the forumula'.   I might mention what
> formula I meant.    The formula is $1=8000btu.    This is a curious
> complex system fact of enormous significance.  What it means, and what I
> meant to allude to with my quip, was that because $'s measure physical
> things and their physical impacts, finding a new niche resource does not
> solve the problem of multiplying impacts all over.   Say a little nuke
> plant has a little less waste.  If you increase them exponentially
> you'll still have exponentially increasing waste.  You'll also have
> exponentially increasing impacts of all the uses that people put the
> energy produced to.   If you look at the whole impact of things you get
> a better picture than just considering the parts.   That's the intent of
> my $shadow measure, which I again ref below.
>
>
> Phil Henshaw                       ????.?? ? `?.????
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 680 Ft. Washington Ave
> NY NY 10040                      
> tel: [phone]                
> e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com          
> explorations: www.synapse9.com    
>
>
> reposted..
> The embodied energy of $1 is about 8000btu's*, consistently in all the
> economies.  That means that as an economic product, dollars are a direct
> measure of energy use.   That simply means that growth in dollars is a
> direct measure of exponentially growing impacts of exploiting the earth
> for energy, in nearly direct constant proportion.  
>
> Of the three main energy sources, fossil, nuclear, and competition for
> land, which would you recommend for providing exponential increases of
> energy forever, without consequences?   Think about it.  That's
> different than the story we've been hearing from the masters of magic
> all these years, as we pulled the whole construction of our civilization
> out of a magic hole in the ground.   It turns out the world is what it
> appears to be, a small blue ball, with a growth compulsion that *all*
> the great promoters promised would be free, forever, and that turns out
> to be wrong.
>
> *- http://www.synapse9.com/design/dollarshadow.htm see DOE & other ref's
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com
> > [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Owen Densmore
> > Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2007 11:33 PM
> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Edge: The Need for Heretics
> >
> >
> > On Aug 11, 2007, at 8:17 PM, Phil Henshaw wrote:
> >
> > > ...
> > > Of the three main energy sources, fossil, nuclear, and
> > competition for
> > > land, which would you recommend for providing exponential
> > increases of
> > > energy forever, without consequences?
> >
> > I'm a (modified) nuke kinda guy.
> >
> > By modified, I mean the new sub-critical nuclear reactors which use  
> > accelerator technologies to create a dual energy reactor.  
> > The safety  
> > is obvious: if either device fails, the total system simply goes sub-
> > critical.  But the wonderful gain is that they use "spent" reactor  
> > wastes to considerably increase their yield, thus emptying the  
> > caverns full of nuclear waste.
> >    http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf35.html
> >    http://www.world-nuclear.org/sym/1999/venneri.htm
> > Heck, you can even get a book on it on amazon!
> >    http://tinyurl.com/25nztp
> >
> > But the trouble is that most folks are terrified of the word  
> > Nuclear.  (George can't even say it!)  But its possibly the most  
> > useful of our current high tech energy systems.  And the US could be  
> > a technology leader in the field if we'd just try.  But I
> > think Italy  
> > is getting their first, followed by France.
> >
> > Naturally there needs to be a LOT of diversity in energy
> > production.  
> > But sub critical systems offer a lot if we can rid ourselves of the  
> > political correct disease.
> >
> >      -- Owen
> >
> >
> > ============================================================
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 15
> Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 13:49:49 -0600
> From: Carl Tollander <carl at plektyx.com>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Book trade.
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> <friam at redfish.com>
> Message-ID: <46BF645D.5060402 at plektyx.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Alas, not in any place accessible right now, but if you're an Egan fan,
> you might already know about his site,
> http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/SMFrame.html  - Baez is also a
> fan and occasionally does commentary on his work -
> http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/
>
> Carl
>
> Marko A. Rodriguez wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Does anyone read Greg Egan (Australian Sci-Fi author)? If so, does
> > anyone have any of his books that are NOT:
> >
> > Permutation City
> > Teranesia
> > Schilde's Ladder
> >
> > Most of his books seem to be out of print and are super expensive on
> > Amazon. If anyone would like to do some book trading for Greg Egan, it
> > would make me happy.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Marko A. Rodriguez
> > Los Alamos National Laboratory (P362-proto)
> > Los Alamos, NM 87545
> > Phone [phone]
> > http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~okram <http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/%7Eokram>
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > ============================================================
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 16
> Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 14:20:14 -0600
> From: "Nicholas Thompson" <nickthompson at earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Friam Digest, Vol 50, Issue 15
> To: friam at redfish.com
> Message-ID: <380-220078012202014556 at earthlink.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
> QUOTING OWEN:
>
> "Its interesting that there are large gas/oil reserves under the ice
> caps. Yet how did that happen if these result from organic decay?
> Dyson also has an answer for that: there may be earth-core activities
> that contribute a great deal to oil."
>
> I think I can answer this one.  
>
> "Because antartica used to be at the equator...."
>
> Nick
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 17
> Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 14:26:32 -0600
> From: Owen Densmore <owen at backspaces.net>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Edge: The Need for Heretics
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> <friam at redfish.com>
> Message-ID: <59C5A1AA-DEF2-4F21-89E6-6B38FEAB2FA7 at backspaces.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
>
> On Aug 12, 2007, at 12:07 PM, Roger Critchlow wrote:
> > On 8/12/07, David Mirly <mirly at comcast.net> wrote:
> >> 2) It would be wise to attempt to minimize our impacts on such a
> >> complex system when we don't even partially understand the  
> >> consequences.
> >
> > Just to beat on the defenders of the status quo some more, their  
> > rationale
> > for denying climate change and not messing with the economy is  
> > essentially
> > the same:  it, the economy, is a complex system where we don't even
> > partially understand the consequences of even small changes, so it  
> > would be
> > wise to minimize our impacts on it.
> >
> > So we have the same rhetoric of conservatism on both sides of the  
> > question.
>
> One of the best retorts against the status quo is "total cost" of a  
> product, including its entire life cycle.  Many opportunistic  
> capitalists "cheat" by leaving much of the cost of their products to  
> others.
>
> The computer industry is improving in this regard: offering  
> responsible recycling for every product, included in the original  
> cost.  Apple lets you send computers back to them at their end of  
> life.  HP includes ink jet recycling envelopes.  This is at least  
> hopeful.  And Gore, for all his faults, is doing an astounding job of  
> raising awareness.
>
>      -- Owen
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 18
> Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 14:35:38 -0600
> From: "Nicholas Thompson" <nickthompson at earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Friam Digest, Vol 50, Issue 15
> To: friam at redfish.com
> Message-ID: <380-220078012203538455 at earthlink.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
> Dear all,
>
> What a great discussion!  This is the sort of discussion for which I
> treasure this list.  
>
> Still, I just would like to add a testy snarl at any establishment figure
> who calls himself a heretic.  Dennett did this in Darwin's Dangerous Idea,
> trying desparately to wrap himself in the shroud of The Man Himself but
> also to appear like a romantic outsider.  Frankly a bit disgusting.  
>
> You cannot be a household name and a heretic in any meanful sense.  I
> admire these folks for their skills in science AND in reputation
> manipulation, grant getting, editor management, project leadership, etc.,
> etc., but NOT for their courage in going it alone in the scientific
> wilderness.  That honor probably goes properly to people on this list and
> elsewhere whose names we would not recognize.
>
> In the world of science, we do not burn our heretics; we ignore them.
>
> Nick  
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 19
> Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 13:45:25 -0700
> From: David Mirly <mirly at comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Edge: The Need for Heretics
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> <friam at redfish.com>
> Message-ID: <361524B4-00B8-4A8D-AC41-1F815AEF3BF4 at comcast.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
>
> In 1993, Paul Hawken wrote a good book on externalities titled "The  
> Ecology of Commerce".
>
> I imagine most of the readers of this list already know of this book,  
> but for those who don't it's
> a decent work.
>
> On Aug 12, 2007, at 1:26 PM, Owen Densmore wrote:
>
> > On Aug 12, 2007, at 12:07 PM, Roger Critchlow wrote:
> >> On 8/12/07, David Mirly <mirly at comcast.net> wrote:
> >>> 2) It would be wise to attempt to minimize our impacts on such a
> >>> complex system when we don't even partially understand the
> >>> consequences.
> >>
> >> Just to beat on the defenders of the status quo some more, their
> >> rationale
> >> for denying climate change and not messing with the economy is
> >> essentially
> >> the same:  it, the economy, is a complex system where we don't even
> >> partially understand the consequences of even small changes, so it
> >> would be
> >> wise to minimize our impacts on it.
> >>
> >> So we have the same rhetoric of conservatism on both sides of the
> >> question.
> >
> > One of the best retorts against the status quo is "total cost" of a
> > product, including its entire life cycle.  Many opportunistic
> > capitalists "cheat" by leaving much of the cost of their products to
> > others.
> >
> > The computer industry is improving in this regard: offering
> > responsible recycling for every product, included in the original
> > cost.  Apple lets you send computers back to them at their end of
> > life.  HP includes ink jet recycling envelopes.  This is at least
> > hopeful.  And Gore, for all his faults, is doing an astounding job of
> > raising awareness.
> >
> >      -- Owen
> >
> >
> >
> > ============================================================
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 20
> Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 15:06:22 -0600
> From: David Breecker <david at breeckerassociates.com>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Edge: The Need for Heretics
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> <friam at redfish.com>
> Message-ID:
> <B0A0CFBE-96C3-409F-B836-5038C1B575AA at breeckerassociates.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Interestingly enough, the two pernicious forms of growth are  
> population, and energy intensity per capita.
>
> The only well-established way to halt population growth (that I know  
> of) is economic development through industrialization.  Which, to  
> date, has meant greater energy intensity and more burning of carbon-
> emitting fuels.
>
> But we can flip that interaction if we develop non-fossil based  
> energy sources, thus allowing greater energy intensity in the  
> developing world, leading to economic development, industrialization,  
> and a brake on population growth.
> db
>
> On Aug 11, 2007, at 10:36 PM, sy at synapse9.com wrote:
>
> > Yes, that's one of the tightly reasoned paths, but how do you stop  
> > growth without wrecking everything??
> > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
>
> dba | David Breecker Associates, Inc.
> Santa Fe: 505-690-2335
> Abiquiu:   505-685-4891
> www.BreeckerAssociates.com
>
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:

http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070812/e922d9a8
/attachment-0001.html

>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 21
> Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 18:48:33 EDT
> From: PPARYSKI at aol.com
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Edge: The Need for Heretics
> To: friam at redfish.com
> Message-ID: <d42.feea9e1.33f0e841 at aol.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> The point I was trying to make, aside from being a heretic and stirring

up  a
> good discussion, was that climate change and global warming are
> scientifically  realities.  There is a question about how much CC/GW are
anthropogenic.  
> After reading all the UN docs (I am ex-UN), I personally  believe that
human
> impacts on climate change are significant and need to be  studied
particularly
> if attempts to mitigate CC/GW are to be made and funded.  The actual IPCC
> studies themselves are more pessimistic than the published  reports which
were
> changed to appear less alarming and more palatable to  politicians and
decision
> makers. I believe that it is absolutely necessary  to adopt pro-active
> adaptation strategies and programs which unfortunately is  not really
happening.
>  
> Perhaps Freeman Dyson meant to encourage discussion by his remarks or
simply

> want to gain notoriety .
>  
> As I grow older I find that I only have opinions and not ideas.
>  
> Paul
>  
>
>
>
> ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new

AOL at
> http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070812/9d132584
/attachment-0001.html

>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 22
> Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 18:56:47 EDT
> From: PPARYSKI at aol.com
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Edge: The Need for Heretics
> To: friam at redfish.com
> Message-ID: <cbf.11d60de5.33f0ea2f at aol.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Hywel,
>  
> Do you deny the reality of climate change and global warming?   Paul
>
>
>
> ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new

AOL at
> http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070812/3309f0a9
/attachment-0001.html

>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 23
> Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 20:06:06 -0400
> From: "Phil Henshaw" <sy at synapse9.com>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Friam Digest, Vol 50, Issue 15
> To: <nickthompson at earthlink.net>, "'The Friday Morning Applied
> Complexity Coffee Group'" <friam at redfish.com>
> Message-ID: <000601c7dd3d$bf03a860$6402a8c0 at SavyII>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
>
>
>
> Nick wrote:
> >
> > In the world of science, we do not burn our heretics; we ignore them.
> >
> > Nick
> >
>
> Much of it is that new points of view are inadvertently read using old
> filters, and just don't connect.   In addition many kinds of new points
> of view require grasping a complex group of new ideas at once, not just
> some new bit of information.   There's also the conflict between old and
> new, heightened by the curious human notion that no point of view should
> ever change once fixed, as you see in all the professions and politics,
> etc.   That's what I think mainly turns 'novelty' into 'heresy' and
> 'curiosity' into 'denial'.   Just ignoring things is the easiest way to
> turn off to new ideas, and also conveniently easy to hide.  It's
> unfortunate, but that seems to be our culture, even if during a time of
> more and more rapid change, a policy of avoiding it seems counter
> productive.  
>
> It's come up several times on FRIAM, that complex systems that tolerate
> deep level diversity, rather than maximizing only one thing, are more
> capable of learning other things.   It's also a principle of economics,
> that mixed economies are more versatile and responsive to change,
> recognized as the 'secret' of cities that they support so many
> overlapping kinds of commerce, and in nature as the 'secret' of
> ecosystems making them richer and more resilient than mono-cultures.  
>
> If we're seeing these things, is there any chance our apparent cultural
> urge to keep every new idea from ever changing, is about to?
>
>
>
> Phil Henshaw                       ????.?? ? `?.????
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 680 Ft. Washington Ave
> NY NY 10040                      
> tel: [phone]                
> e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com          
> explorations: www.synapse9.com  
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 24
> Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 20:16:00 -0400
> From: "Phil Henshaw" <sy at synapse9.com>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Edge: The Need for Heretics
> To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'"
> <friam at redfish.com>
> Message-ID: <000701c7dd3f$210e6c60$6402a8c0 at SavyII>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Well, trying to run a growth economy on renewable energy should stop
> growth fairly effectively, when the ecologies collapse.   It does appear
> that family size shrinks when people are satisfied, and the seems to
> potentially do both.    The question, since $=energy use and growth
> therefore guarantees multiplying energy intensity percapita, is whether
> we figure out how to fix that first or second.
>  
>  
>
> Phil Henshaw                       ????.?? ? `?.????
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 680 Ft. Washington Ave
> NY NY 10040                      
> tel: [phone]                
> e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com          
> explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/>    
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: friam-bounces at redfish.com [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On
> Behalf Of David Breecker
> Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2007 5:06 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Edge: The Need for Heretics
>
>
> Interestingly enough, the two pernicious forms of growth are population,
> and energy intensity per capita.
>
> The only well-established way to halt population growth (that I know of)
> is economic development through industrialization.  Which, to date, has
> meant greater energy intensity and more burning of carbon-emitting
> fuels.
>
> But we can flip that interaction if we develop non-fossil based energy
> sources, thus allowing greater energy intensity in the developing world,
> leading to economic development, industrialization, and a brake on
> population growth.
> db
>
> On Aug 11, 2007, at 10:36 PM, sy at synapse9.com wrote:
>
>
> Yes, that's one of the tightly reasoned paths, but how do you stop
> growth without wrecking everything??
>
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
>
>
>
> dba | David Breecker Associates, Inc.
> Santa Fe: 505-690-2335
> Abiquiu:   505-685-4891
> www.BreeckerAssociates.com
>
>
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:

http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070812/a9148f97
/attachment-0001.html

>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 25
> Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 10:36:14 +1000
> From: Russell Standish <r.standish at unsw.edu.au>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Friam Digest, Vol 50, Issue 15
> To: nickthompson at earthlink.net, The Friday Morning Applied Complexity
> Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
> Message-ID: <20070813003614.GB26103 at bloody-dell.nsw.bigpond.net.au>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Or more likely, the icesheets weren't always there. For instance,
> during the time of the dinosaurs, Antartica was still at the South
> Pole, but had a largely subtropical climate with forests and dinosaurs
> hunting through them. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous
>
> The glaciation of Antartica only started with the breakup of
> Gondwanaland, leading to the establishment of the circumpolar current
> which prevents heat traveling into the heart of the continent from the
> tropics.
>
> Also the world is a fair bit cooler now, than it was then - not sure
> of the exact reasons for that.
>
> In any case for the gas/oil deposits, its what the climate was during
> the Carboniferous that is important. IIRC, the Carboniferous had a
> warm climate, with some glaciations towards the end of the period.
>
> Cheers
>
> On Sun, Aug 12, 2007 at 02:20:14PM -0600, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
> > QUOTING OWEN:
> >
> > "Its interesting that there are large gas/oil reserves under the ice
> > caps. Yet how did that happen if these result from organic decay?
> > Dyson also has an answer for that: there may be earth-core activities
> > that contribute a great deal to oil."
> >
> > I think I can answer this one.  
> >
> > "Because antartica used to be at the equator...."
> >
> > Nick
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ============================================================
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
> --
>
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> A/Prof Russell Standish                  Phone [phone] (mobile)
> Mathematics                        
> UNSW SYDNEY 2052                 hpcoder at hpcoders.com.au
> Australia                                http://www.hpcoders.com.au
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 26
> Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 21:55:43 -0600
> From: steve smith <sasmyth at swcp.com>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Book trade.
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> <friam at redfish.com>
> Message-ID: <46BFD63F.6060201 at swcp.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Marko A. Rodriguez wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Does anyone read Greg Egan (Australian Sci-Fi author)? If so, does
> > anyone have any of his books that are NOT:
> >
> > Permutation City
> > Teranesia
> > Schilde's Ladder
> >
> > Most of his books seem to be out of print and are super expensive on
> > Amazon. If anyone would like to do some book trading for Greg Egan, it
> > would make me happy.
> I do not believe I have any Greg Egan myself, however, my good friend &
> Colleague in the UK, Susan Stepney has quite the collection and is a
> Greg Egan fan.
> http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/susan/sf/books/e/egan.htm
>
> For any other Science Fictioneers out there, I highly recommend her
> reviews... she is extremely widely read in Science Fiction and is also a
> complexity scientist herself, formerly working at Logica a bit of a
> British version of Bios .   She is now a professor at U. York and has
> quite the entertaining list of grad student projects, etc.   She and I
> are ostensibly working on working on a paper that might evolve into a
> book on Cellular Automata and beyond!
>
> Along with Amazon and Powell's, I also recommend Alibris

(www.alibris.com).

>
> None of this solves the problem that Egan's work is mostly over 10 years
> old, out of print and expensive... I *will* keep my eyes open for Egan
> whom Susan has recommended to me many times.
>
> - Steve
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 27
> Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 22:23:01 -0600
> From: David Breecker <David at breeckerassociates.com>
> Subject: [FRIAM] Science and Action
> To: Friam Group <Friam at redfish.com>
> Message-ID:
> <35DE3741-A4E4-4086-921D-A0C418E1C336 at breeckerassociates.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> I'd like to add (at least) one more thing to the provocative thread  
> of the past few days:  for those interested in how science  
> communicates with other sectors and affects practical outcomes, the  
> Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies convened a  
> conference at the Aspen Institute a few years ago, entitled  
> "Americans and Climate Change: Closing the Gap between Science and  
> Action."
>
> You can download the PDF of the conference report at http://
> environment.yale.edu/climate/americans_and_climate_change.pdf
>
> One of the key findings was that the way scientists tend to discuss  
> issues like certainty, and their dialectical method of taking  
> exception to perceived flaws in one another's work, has hampered our  
> ability to convey the urgency of the climate change situation and the  
> preponderance of (scientific) opinion and findings to the general  
> public and policy makers.
>
> db
>
> dba | David Breecker Associates, Inc.
> Santa Fe: 505-690-2335
> Abiquiu:   505-685-4891
> www.BreeckerAssociates.com
>
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:

http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070812/5ace0ccb
/attachment-0001.html

>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 28
> Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 00:25:45 -0600
> From: "Stephen Guerin" <stephen.guerin at redfish.com>
> Subject: [FRIAM] ** reminder today** Lecture Monday, August 13 10:30a:
> Rob Axtell - Informal Chat on Agent-Based Modeling and Generative
> Social Science
> To: <friam at redfish.com>
> Message-ID: <002101c7dd72$c9b74570$6701a8c0 at hongyu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> ** reminder today **
> ** note special day and time **
>
> Robert Axtell
> External Faculty, Santa Fe Institute
> Professor, George Mason University, Krasnow Institute for Advanced Study,
> Krasnow Institute for Advanced Study
>
> TITLE: Informal Chat on Agent-Based Modeling and Generative Social Science
>
> TIME: Monday, August 13 10:30am  *** note special day and time
> LOCATION: Redfish Conference Room, 624 Agua Fria Street, Santa Fe, NM
>
> ABSTRACT:
> Rob will discuss current research and have an open chat about ABM and

generative

> social science.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 29
> Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 05:45:10 -0600
> From: "Marcus G. Daniels" <marcus at snoutfarm.com>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Science and Action
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> <friam at redfish.com>
> Message-ID: <46C04446.9010701 at snoutfarm.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> David Breecker wrote:
> > One of the key findings was that the way scientists tend to discuss
> > issues like certainty, and their dialectical method of taking
> > exception to perceived flaws in one another's work, has hampered our
> > ability to convey the urgency of the climate change situation and the
> > preponderance of (scientific) opinion and findings to the general
> > public and policy makers.
> p57 and vicinity on incentives ring true.   But you know, there are a
> lot of tenured university professors that will have their jobs pretty
> much no matter what they do.   Some of them may not be even engaged in
> research, but still well aware of the issues from their teaching
> obligations.   It seems to me University leadership could do more to
> draw these people out for local television news and newspapers.   E.g.
> by giving big raises for public outreach and by giving them influence at
> the university.
>
> The public won't know and won't care whether or not such professors are
> leaders their fields or not.    To the public, they are experts and
> authorities or else they wouldn't be professors.
>
> A lot of the other supposedly immutable `academic traditions' (cough)
> could be fixed with a wider range of funding opportunities.   Of course
> if a researcher's career depends on the whims of just a few colleagues,
> they will become extremely cautious in keeping those colleagues happy.  
> So give more people more options.  Perhaps nothing will change at the
> tippy top of the ivory tower for elite researchers, but it doesn't have

to.

>
> Marcus
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Friam mailing list
> Friam at redfish.com
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>
>
> End of Friam Digest, Vol 50, Issue 16
> *************************************

[David Breecker]

Kant's Categorical Imperative is the only (I think) answer:   http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative

He defined an imperative as any proposition that declares a certain  
action (or inaction) to be necessary. A hypothetical imperative would  
compel action in a given circumstance: If I wish to satisfy my  
thirst, then I must drink something. A categorical imperative would  
denote an absolute, unconditional requirement that exerts its  
authority in all circumstances, both required and justified as an end  
in itself. It is best known in its first formulation: "Act only  
according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it  
should become a universal law." [1]

db

On Aug 13, 2007, at 3:53 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:

> All,
>
> The best argument for worrying about global warming presented so  
> far in
> this interesting correspondence is the one that says it costs us  
> relatively
> little to worry about it and and costs us LOT if we dont.
>
> Sort of like Pascal's argument for prayer, right?
>
> I do worry about complexity thinking leading to fatalism.  If a  
> goddamned
> butterfly can cause a climate crash, why take responsibility for  
> ANYTHING
> we do.  We should all be dionysians.

dba | David Breecker Associates, Inc.
Santa Fe: 505-690-2335
Abiquiu:   505-685-4891
www.BreeckerAssociates.com



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070813/86ee8ba4/attachment.html 

[Marcus G. Daniels]

Nicholas Thompson wrote:
> The best argument for worrying about global warming presented so far in
> this interesting correspondence is the one that says it costs us relatively
> little to worry about it and and costs us LOT if we dont.  
>  
> Sort of like Pascal's argument for prayer, right?
The consequences of not praying can't in principle be measured, at least
in the sense of go to heaven or not..
But we can improve/disprove models for the consequences of global
warming and its causes.   There are measurable things..

[Marcus G. Daniels]

Marcus G. Daniels wrote:
> But we can improve/disprove models for the consequences of global
> warming and its causes.   There are measurable things..
Put another way, we've done the perturbation experiment where we pour
massive amounts of extra CO2 in the atmosphere.
We can try other experiments, like, as Dyson suggests, inventing new
ways to make lots of biomass or reducing the artificial CO2 or both.
Then the climate models can be checked as the input parameters will have
changed in ways that can at least be estimated.    Yes, I realize there
is a problem of the error bars on these experiments, but in principle it
is possible, unlike with prayer!

[Phil Henshaw-2]

It's evidently a sign the whole thing is unimportant that people indulge
in the luxury of abstract debate for making their decisions.   If it
were perceived as real, wouldn't we make decisions the normal way?
 

Phil Henshaw                       ????.?? ? `?.????
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
680 Ft. Washington Ave
NY NY 10040                      
tel: [phone]                
e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com          
explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/>    

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On
Behalf Of David Breecker
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 6:37 PM
To: nickthompson at earthlink.net; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity
Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Pascal's Wager and Global Warming


Kant's Categorical Imperative is the only (I think) answer:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative

He defined an imperative as any proposition that declares a certain
action (or inaction) to be
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_possibility> necessary. A
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_imperative> hypothetical
imperative would compel action in a given circumstance: If I wish to
satisfy my thirst, then I must drink something. A categorical imperative
would denote an absolute, unconditional requirement that exerts its
authority in all circumstances, both required and justified as an end in
itself. It is best known in its first formulation: "Act only according
to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should
become a universal law."
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative#_note-Ellington>
[1]

db

On Aug 13, 2007, at 3:53 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:


All,




The best argument for worrying about global warming presented so far in

this interesting correspondence is the one that says it costs us
relatively

little to worry about it and and costs us LOT if we dont.  




Sort of like Pascal's argument for prayer, right?




I do worry about complexity thinking leading to fatalism.  If a
goddamned

butterfly can cause a climate crash, why take responsibility for
ANYTHING

we do.  We should all be dionysians.  



dba | David Breecker Associates, Inc.
Santa Fe: 505-690-2335
Abiquiu:   505-685-4891
www.BreeckerAssociates.com




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070813/7f1c2971/attachment.html