[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27767031][URL]http://www.spring.org.uk/2009/10/how-rewards-can-backfire-and-reduce-motivation.php[/URL][/QUOTE]
I would say that is flawed in a way that...
If I was asked to make a drawing in an hour, and in the end I would get 5 dollars just for competing, I probably would just fuck around. However, if I was told that at the end of the hour, my picture would be up for competition with 5 other people and the person with the best drawing got the 5 dollars, I would try to make the best drawing I could.
This can be applied to any other situation that uses competition and reward hand in hand.
My best painting I ever created was one that I made for an art competition which I won, along with some cash. That painting was much more intricate than my normal ones.
I think you're slightly misinterpreting the study. It acknowledges that both are good in specific situation. That and judging the aesthetic appeal is very objective for a study.
I would go into this more, howeverI'm posting from a phone now so it's somewhat awkward even with swype to go into more detail.
But for now that experiment us very objective and ill explain tomorrow why.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27766889]Data from several studies have shown that a child who gets rewarded for drawing will draw worse and less often then they did before they got rewarded and didn't enjoy drawing. I think this shows my point.[/QUOTE]
that would make a lot of sense if the world consisted completely of children and all work was as simple as drawing.
I'd be more hesitant, if I were you, in applying isolated studies to a global system.
[QUOTE=Mr_Razzums;27767120]I would say that is flawed in a way that...
If I was asked to make a drawing in an hour, and in the end I would get 5 dollars just for competing, I probably would just fuck around. However, if I was told that at the end of the hour, my picture would be up for competition with 5 other people and the person with the best drawing got the 5 dollars, I would try to make the best drawing I could.
This can be applied to any other situation that uses competition and reward hand in hand.
My best painting I ever created was one that I made for an art competition which I won, along with some cash. This painting was much more intricate than my normal ones.[/QUOTE]
I dont think in everyday life a comedian or artists is reminded that there is someone out there that can make a better joke then him when doing there work. My cousin is an artist and the paintings she painted for herself looks better then the ones she paints for competitions. Not to say that every artist is like that.
[editline]30th January 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sector 7;27767257]that would make a lot of sense if the world consisted completely of children and all work was as simple as drawing.
I'd be more hesitant, if I were you, in applying isolated studies to a global system.[/QUOTE]
This has been more then one study and they did it to more then just kids
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27766618]Im sorry but really?
[url]http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/motivation.html[/url]
there is one I found real quick
This thread has gotten to the point were insults have become good points[/QUOTE]
since when is philosophy fac-
you know what, no, fuck you
[QUOTE=Teddi Orange;27767221]I think you're slightly misinterpreting the study. It acknowledges that both are good in specific situation. That and judging the aesthetic appeal is very objective for a study.[/QUOTE]
I think the fact that the title its clear that reward often takes away creativity and while yes aethetic is something based on opinion someone can tell when someone put more or less work into something.
[editline]30th January 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=cccritical;27767330]since when is philosophy fac-
you know what, no, fuck you[/QUOTE]
read the thing before just going by what the link is called. I also thought this but after looking its clear its a study using an experiment. Stop acting like a child. funny because you called me young but name calling and lying is something I would expect from a child.
So basically, space/future communism
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27764941]Well yea I knew that. I was just making quick examples without explaining. My point was that valve is different then most companies because it makes money off of being nicer to customers. Meaning that every company will do what they can to get money and nothing more.[/QUOTE]
Valve is only different than most companies because they are fucking geniuses. They understand economics enough to know they can take a $20 game on Steam that sells, maybe, 2 copies per month, drop it down to $5 during a Christmas sale, all the sudden thousands, tens of thousands of digital purchases are made. They don't do awesome sales because they like you, they do awesome sales because it makes them boatloads of cash. Thereby using Valve as an example for what a "good" company does is incredibly ironic, because people with smart business sense (like the folks at Valve) have the most to gain from a free market/capitalist system.
Agreed imagine what the videogame industry or the world would be like if everyone worked like valve.
Yes.
And it wouldn't be possible in anything less than a capitalistic, free-market society where the people decide the material worth of everything.
Point?
But if people decided the material worth of everything then poor Steve Jobs would be out of business.
edit
dam just realized I went over 3000 posts and didnt celebrate it.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27768044]But if people decided the material worth of everything then poor Steve Jobs would be out of business.[/QUOTE]
everything is worth what it's purchaser will pay for it
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27765234][img_thumb]http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/images/innovation.png[/img_thumb]
and this
[url]http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/motivation.html[/url][/QUOTE]
Now, [i]that's[/i] what I'm talking about. I've seen the graphs and noted a number of flaws with the methodology, but the monetary motivation bit from GNU is strong work.
Here's comes another gruellingly logical litany...
First, the charts from Equality Trust. Patents are filed with multiple countries if those from one nation aren't recognized by another. Corporations typically file them under multiple jurisdictions or via international patent procedures. This can create patent entries across several countries for a single idea. In addition, as cccritical points out, it is virtually impossible to quantify the value and legitimacy of derivative patents that are applied for and approved. If there are 999 patents for mousetraps (assumed agreement of very little value) and only one for nuclear waste processing (assumed agreement of very high value), the sheer quantity of patents means almost nothing.
The monetary motivation argument is very interesting, indeed. There is certainly great merit to the argument that money doesn't motivate. It isn't its purpose to act as such.
Taking the artist example, if works are being produced out of raw passion, then there is often a creative fount unleashed. However, an artist still has basic life needs to fulfill. Food, water, shelter, clothing, etc. If the artist's work appeals to another individual, an exchange can be agreed upon, affording the artist his basic life needs as well as continuing support for his art. There is an uncertain monetary reward potential: there might be a great or small reward, or no reward at all. An artist might learn that he can create less inspired pieces that will be easier to exchange or sell in order to support his desire to pursue his greater interests, or he may obtain employment for repetitive tasks (waiting, tutoring, etc.) that pay the bills. Either way, artists usually get laid... a lot.
For another situation, look to Google. Their developers are granted one day per week to work on whatever they want while collecting salary pay. From the link you sent, there was mention that flat per-hour pay seemed to have no negative impact. This also seems to be keeping Google moving in a progressive direction.
As for the aspect of monetary reward, it exists to facilitate the trade of goods and services for other goods and services. It acts as both an incentive and feedback mechanism. It is an incentive for both the artist and the programmer to do something which is both productive and supportive of himself. It is a feedback mechanism for the artist in that he learns what needs to be done in order to support himself and his passions; likewise for the programmer. Accumulation of money is a means for most people, not an end.
True reward for the artist can be recognition from the art community. The same can be true for the programmer, particularly in the open source community by his piece of code being used and attributed within a popular program. There can be a great deal of trial and error progression until that point is achieved for either individual. In the meantime, monetarily-compensated works may provide the experience, practical ability and honed skill to achieve what the individual desires.
Yo-Yo Ma is universally acclaimed as a great cellist, having achieved that through both passionate desire for it as well as a great deal of study and practice. Now, he is compensated monetarily as a show of gratitude for displaying his skill and passion. This is a major distinction that must be noted when concerning money. If money were an incentive for Yo-Yo Ma's music, it is likely that he wouldn't have become the great that he is today. However, at his current stage, it is an additional form of [i]objective[/i] feedback (in addition to the fact that he draws crowds of avid listeners) that allows him to live a very comfortable lifestyle.
Yes, if the basic physical necessities of life were taken care of, there would be a far lessened need for money. Ignoring the fact that we certainly are not at a point where that is possible without a monetary system, there still is no guarantee that money would be eliminated. The only way to know for certain is not by forcing a social structure that eschews money, but to allow the natural progression of a free humanity to adapt and adopt what it finds to be the best and most effective practices.
It may do well for you to consider money to be like a YouTube video's popularity. If a particular video has 100 views, it has earned 100 credits (that's as ambiguously objective a unit to use for now). For a video with 1 million credits/views, the creator of that video has an example of his own work that he knows can become popular. If that individual desires to remain popular, he can create new content similar to that or branch off to experiment. Money here is acting as a feedback mechanism again.
When it comes to money acting as an incentive, look to [url=http://www.googlelunarxprize.org/]Google's Lunar X Prize[/url] competition. This isn't a mock-up test situation where people subject themselves to a random scenario. It's a project that attracts people and groups passionate about the subject and interested in succeeding at something they would probably be doing anyway, regardless of whether Google offered a monetary reward.
What it all boils down to is that there are effective and less-than-effective ways of applying money as either incentive or feedback. I'll highlight some negative situations later. For now, I'll just say that most of the negative uses involve government.
[QUOTE=cccritical;27765841]Sector 7, don't bother. I think he's the most stubborn AND most misinformed person on Facepunch, he still believes 9/11 was a government inside job and the whole shebang.
[editline]30th January 2011[/editline]
last post I will waste on you
your entire chart was capitalist[b]ic[/b] societies, you said capitalism halted innovation for the love of god
destroy your computer and kill yourself[/QUOTE]
Hey, I think there's far more than enough to suggest that some shady involvement happened with 9/11... and debate for another thread.
Yes, the majority of those nations have/had strong capitalistic tendencies. They've innovated to such a great extent [i]despite[/i] government and corrupted monetary systems. Innovation spurred by free enterprise certainly doesn't commute to communist/fascist/socialist/totalitarian regimes; so despite their current attributes, they're only thriving off the fat from past generations, not necessarily creating success.
As much as I'm dying laughing at the comments, keep it civil.
[QUOTE=Sector 7;27768232]everything is worth what it's purchaser will pay for it[/QUOTE]
Precisely. To expound, people who don't find iProducts worth their time and effort won't obtain one no matter what the cost. Members of some older generations (baby boomers, et al.) often don't see a need for them. Meanwhile, those who do see value in an item that adheres to a high level of construction quality and consistently familiar interface will put in the extra effort required to obtain them. Forcing these things upon people would be folly; does everyone have to have an iPad? Would that make people equal? Should Apple be forced to give it's hardware manufacturing techniques and software code to any company that wants it? Would that be 'fair'? Better yet, is life fair?
Here's a plus: sillypiggy can keep throwing out every argument he can come up with against a sound monetary system and every one can be countered. This thread is building up a heavy list of concrete counter-arguments. I find it worthwhile because there have even been a few good challenges that force some deep thinking, so it's rewarding enough to keep going. You have to admit, projecting your own logic and reason provides a certain level of intellectual stimulation. And if there happens to be some kind of distortion of reality whereby he happens to actually prove me wrong, then I'll be a monkey's uncle.
[editline]31st January 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27768044]But if people decided the material worth of everything then poor Steve Jobs would be out of business.
edit
dam just realized I went over 300 posts and didnt celebrate it.[/QUOTE]
Congrats?
Out of curiosity, what are your incentives?
How do you determine how much time you spend doing what you need to do versus what you want to do?
How would you propose determining material wealth?
[QUOTE=miscreanity;27768769]Out of curiosity, what are your incentives?
How do you determine how much time you spend doing what you need to do versus what you want to do?
How would you propose determining material wealth?[/QUOTE]
My incentives? have fun and help humanity I guess. Im a lazy person so I know want comes over need a little more then it should in my life but I make dew. but when you say need do you mean need to survive or need to have an ok life. As long as I have some food, water and shelter I can live so my needs are currently taken care of so I dont have to spend to much time on that since I think its unlikely that I will die anytime soon. to determine material wealth I guess just how much it effects me. something that can change per person.
[quote]Forcing these things upon people would be folly; does everyone have to have an iPad? Would that make people equal? Should Apple be forced to give it's hardware manufacturing techniques and software code to any company that wants it? Would that be 'fair'? Better yet, is life fair?[/quote] I dont want to force something on someone. If a person wants an mp3 device in the system I advocate people could get an mp3 player if they want. If they dont then they will not waste the trouble going and getting one and the space needed to have one.
[editline]30th January 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=cccritical;27765841]Sector 7, don't bother. I think he's the most stubborn AND most misinformed person on Facepunch, he still believes 9/11 was a government inside job [/QUOTE]
How many times must I tell you this. I dont believe that. you told that lie more then once. ccritical is all you can do to win an argument to lie about the person you are arguing against? stubborn? you still believed in god guided evolution after I explained that it would be useless for it to be guided in the way you explain since the environment allowed it.
[editline]30th January 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=miscreanity;27768769]Taking the artist example, if works are being produced out of raw passion, then there is often a creative fount unleashed. However, an artist still has basic life needs to fulfill. Food, water, shelter, clothing[/QUOTE]
Yes I understand that an artist will create in order to survive. There was an artist that had many paintings of little mostly naked boys because the person who bought his paintings was a perv. But like I said without the need to paint in order to survive the artist could have painted what he wanted to paint and it would probably look even better because of that.
[editline]30th January 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=miscreanity;27768769]there still is no guarantee that money would be eliminated. The only way to know for certain is not by forcing a social structure that eschews money, but to allow the natural progression of a free humanity to adapt and adopt what it finds to be the best and most effective practices[/QUOTE]
Well we arnt going to force anything on anyone. But think about the natural process we are in now. Wouldnt me wanting to change it and if other people also do and do change it wouldnt that also be by the natural process? If the system I advocate works then we it will work if it doesnt then we could go back to the old way. But Im going to say im scared about just waiting and doing nothing. If you look at the world its getting used up fast and things are seeming to go down the drain. organism are going extinct at over 1000 times faster then normal and farm soil is going away. No one is willing to do something that big about it because no one has figured out a way to make money off of stopping it. well there is selling clean power but nothing big. The market decides what we as humans spend are time doing and sadly hardly any of that is going to helping humanity or the world. Thats why I say if its possible to make a system were everyone would be able to resources and everyone can spend there time doing what they want instead of what they have to do then I say we should try to go for it. I bet if we do make this system and it works then people will want to spend 24 hours of free time they get stopping the things we did to the earth so that way there children can see a good world. I will say talking to you has been worth being called a 5 year old by cccritical and hope to do some more tomorrow but I have to go to sleep.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27768898]I dont want to force something on someone. If a person wants an mp3 device in the system I advocate people could get an mp3 player if they want. If they dont then they will not waste the trouble going and getting one and the space needed to have one.[/QUOTE]
Couldn't that potentially make consumerism a thousand times worse?
People will always want things. But under the system Zeitgeist proposes, the only limiting factor in availability (cost) is eliminated. However, technological progress continues (theoretically.)
Lets pretend you think iPads are cool, because a bunch of your friends have them. You go pick one up for free. You find out that you don't need one for anything, however, and decide to get rid of it. You can't give it to any of your friends, because anyone who wanted one already has one. For the same reason, it's useless to return it. It's easier, either way, to just throw it out. Next year, the iPad 2 comes out and the cycle repeats.
Except it's not just iPads. If you can own anything for free, why not own everything? You don't even have to bother with considering or weighing pros and cons. Just order something and throw it out later if you don't like it.
Meanwhile, people are designing their own whimsical ipads and whatnots, because there are no longer any monetary limitations to starting a 'business,' so to speak. Assuming the robotic infrastructure can fabricate any items designed individually, (questionable,) you'll start seeing knockoffs of knockoffs of knockoffs. And people are gonna keep ordering them, because again, why the hell not? It'd be like watching videos on youtube, except with physical objects instead of non-physical data. There is no possible recycling program in the world that could keep up with that mess.
And if you want to keep shit like that from happening, you're going to need a human organization to approve inventions, and bam, you've got a government and an economy, and all the problems Jacque claims those things entail.
[QUOTE=Sector 7;27769653]If you can own anything for free, why not own everything? You don't even have to bother with considering or weighing pros and cons. Just order something and throw it out later if you don't like it.[/QUOTE]
If you dont like the Ipad then you could return it in the same way you got it. It wouldnt be that hard. it would be like netflix. Oh and instead of just simply making Ipad 2 it would be better to make an attachment to the original Ipad itself to save resources. Instead of making thousands of computers It would make more sense to start out with one and give it the ability to be added to. Instead of having to get a whole new thing.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27782167]If you dont like the Ipad then you could return it in the same way you got it. It wouldnt be that hard. it would be like netflix. Oh and instead of just simply making Ipad 2 it would be better to make an attachment to the original Ipad itself to save resources. Instead of making thousands of computers It would make more sense to start out with one and give it the ability to be added to. Instead of having to get a whole new thing.[/QUOTE]
you have completely missed the point
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27782167]If you dont like the Ipad then you could return it in the same way you got it. It wouldnt be that hard. it would be like netflix. Oh and instead of just simply making Ipad 2 it would be better to make an attachment to the original Ipad itself to save resources. Instead of making thousands of computers It would make more sense to start out with one and give it the ability to be added to. Instead of having to get a whole new thing.[/QUOTE]
Besides, there wouldn't even be such a thing as an Ipad in a zeitgeist system. 36,000 people worked for apple in 2009 alone, today I'm sure it is over 40,000. Do you really expect all 40,000 of those people to work for this company (oh and by company I mean.... A group of people who wish to design things on their free time, as corporations and companies no longer exist.) when work is completely optional? And every human is gifted with 24/7 free time? No, I would be sailing the Greek islands in my super yacht provided to me for free (oh and by free..... I mean a share of the worlds resources equally distributed to the citizens... wait I don't know.) by the government (oh and by the government... well there really isn't a government so I guess it was given [by given I mean I was entitled to it] to me by a collective decision by the people).
Plus with that out of the picture, what if every person on the planet wanted an Ipad, a Iphone, and an Itouch? Would some people not get to have one? That doesn't sound very fair to me.
Like I said before with the ipod ipad thing. Make something basic item that can be upraged it would save resources and for the business thing. sure there wont be a business. But as science moves forward so to will new technology.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27785530]Like I said before with the ipod ipad thing. Make something basic item that can be upraged it would save resources and for the business thing. sure there wont be a business. But as science moves forward so to will new technology.[/QUOTE]
You do know that a very very very very high percentage of research and technology comes from independent and private businesses and companies right? And you do know that those companies do their research for profit right?
[QUOTE=Mr_Razzums;27785802]You do know that a very very very very high percentage of research and technology comes from independent and private businesses and companies right? And you do know that those companies do their research for profit right?[/QUOTE]
Yes and I realize that they also spend a lot of time and energy on advertising and other stuff.
While yes its true that fun uses of technology have been found businesses. I know that the original science behind a technology comes from other things most of the time. My main point though is that the reason why Ipods and junk like that come from businesses is because there are businesses to create the technology with infinite money while a resource less group of people wouldn't be able to compete. given the resources needed you would see people improving upon technology. there are people modding and creating things today without business help but with many resources a group of scientists who like to play videogames could build better ways to run games for the intreset of playing good fun games.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27768898]Well we arnt going to force anything on anyone. But think about the natural process we are in now. Wouldnt me wanting to change it and if other people also do and do change it wouldnt that also be by the natural process? If the system I advocate works then we it will work if it doesnt then we could go back to the old way. But Im going to say im scared about just waiting and doing nothing. If you look at the world its getting used up fast and things are seeming to go down the drain. organism are going extinct at over 1000 times faster then normal and farm soil is going away. No one is willing to do something that big about it because no one has figured out a way to make money off of stopping it. well there is selling clean power but nothing big. The market decides what we as humans spend are time doing and sadly hardly any of that is going to helping humanity or the world. Thats why I say if its possible to make a system were everyone would be able to resources and everyone can spend there time doing what they want instead of what they have to do then I say we should try to go for it. I bet if we do make this system and it works then people will want to spend 24 hours of free time they get stopping the things we did to the earth so that way there children can see a good world. I will say talking to you has been worth being called a 5 year old by cccritical and hope to do some more tomorrow but I have to go to sleep.[/QUOTE]
Without establishing agreed-upon definitions, there can be no sensible debate.
What is your definition of 'forcing'? What natural processes are you referring to, and what makes them natural?
When you say organisms are going extinct 1000 times faster than normal, what is the normal rate relative to the accelerated rate? Is a reduction in biodiversity necessarily a negative event, or is it a natural process that culls the weaker species to make room for renewed growth?
Keep in mind that mass extinctions have occurred in the past:
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event[/url]
[QUOTE=Sector 7;27784516]you have completely missed the point[/QUOTE]
As Sector 7 alluded to, getting caught up in details skips the principles that permeate the issue. This is the largest factor distinguishing a mediocre work from a great one. Compare the plot depth of [url=http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0343818/]I, Robot[/url] to [url=http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083658/]Bladerunner[/url]. The former is much more of a 'something is amiss and it needs to be fixed' tale than the latter, which becomes an examination of the human condition and speculation on what it means to be more than the sum of your parts; to be human.
With that in mind, the Zeitgeist movement reflects the shallow nature of an organization focused on the technical aspects of its objective without having a coherent grasp of anything other than reactions that can only be described as 'this is scary, so it must be bad and we have to do something about it'. It is an activist group trying to persuade (and even manipulate) people into supporting an objective without even pausing to wonder whether what it's doing might have unpredictably negative effects that will be exacerbated by rushing headlong into a wildly optimistic course of action. This is even less effective than herding cats, as there is an amorphous nature to human social behavior (as well as many other systems) that defies current common intuition. Time and time again, these kind of exercises prove to be their own overly-rigid failing, even with the best attempts at designing a flexible system.
Genetic algorithms are an excellent example of allowing the system to proceed naturally to an optimized point. All that the ZM has to do is license the technology and allow it to be incorporated into the world. The degree to which it encourages or facilitates lack of government will arise on its own if that's what the result becomes. Any form of central planning won't be flexible enough to compensate for uncertainties in development as time goes on and unforeseen progress takes place.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27785530]Like I said before with the ipod ipad thing. Make something basic item that can be upraged it would save resources and for the business thing. sure there wont be a business. But as science moves forward so to will new technology.[/QUOTE]
Except there are no groups that govern the development of anything. There are no reasons to make anything upgradeable. You can say "well, they'd do this so it's not a problem," but why
...
...you know, I gave up on this post. You clearly have a very strained grasp on the nature of the human race, and you consistently fail to recognize the core of any of our arguments.
Let me put it this way: Entropy itself is the reason why this movement is not possible.
The AZ shooter is a member of this movement.
[QUOTE=RebeccaChambers;27788912]The AZ shooter is a member of this movement.[/QUOTE]
What are you suggesting? What if the shooter were a member of the Republican party, Scientology or Reader Digest's Book-of-the-Month Club?
[QUOTE=RebeccaChambers;27788912]The AZ shooter is a member of this movement.[/QUOTE]
You believe everything you see on television.
From:
[url]http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1043800-Religious-youth-brainwashing-camps[/url]
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27088586]Classic brainwashing. You can get anyone believe anything when you do it like that, especially to children.
I think every child should read virus of the mind so or learn about memetics so they dont get brainwashed that easily.[/QUOTE]
He makes sense when pointing out the deceptive tactics employed by religions, so how does he fall prey to Zeitgeist? Is it because science is the new religion, information overload, wishful thinking or something else entirely?
[QUOTE=miscreanity;27798232]From:
[url]http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1043800-Religious-youth-brainwashing-camps[/url]
He makes sense when pointing out the deceptive tactics employed by religions, so how does he fall prey to Zeitgeist? Is it because science is the new religion, information overload, wishful thinking or something else entirely?[/QUOTE]
I already thought about this. I dont just let any old idea go into my mind willy Nilly or because it feels good. also If you treat science like a religion then it is no longer science. I Didnt just look at the venus project and think its perfect and it will work. I looked at what it had to say and thought about it for months before thinking it could work looking at arguments for and against it. I do see however many bad arguments against it based on what they think of the idea instead of what it really is.
[editline]1st February 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Pockets;27793323]You believe everything you see on television.[/QUOTE]
as you can see there are still many different types of people in the movement. I can see why it would appeal to a person like this. As you can see me and this poster are different people but still believe in the movement for different reasons.
[editline]1st February 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=RebeccaChambers;27788912]The AZ shooter is a member of this movement.[/QUOTE]
I never heard this before please show link
[editline]1st February 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sector 7;27788659]There are no reasons to make anything upgradeable.[/quote]
There is a reason. saving of resources, time and making it more available is a reason. Give a reason why someone would make a bigger hard drive but also make a whole new computer for the soul reason of running it unless it was impossible to do other wise.
[editline]1st February 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=miscreanity;27788245]Without establishing agreed-upon definitions, there can be no sensible debate.
What is your definition of 'forcing'? What natural processes are you referring to, and what makes them natural?
When you say organisms are going extinct 1000 times faster than normal, what is the normal rate relative to the accelerated rate? Is a reduction in biodiversity necessarily a negative event, or is it a natural process that culls the weaker species to make room for renewed growth?[/QUOTE]
Well sure a huge change in environment can create new species but the reason why this isn't a good thing most of the time because humans are adapted to the current environment. The reason we don't want to change it is because that could be bad for us.
[editline]1st February 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=miscreanity;27788245]unpredictably negative effects that will be exacerbated by rushing headlong into a wildly optimistic course of action.[/QUOTE]
We want to try to do test cities and other things to see how it might go. I know that its not going to go exactly as planned and that we cant predict what life will be like if humans ever try to see if this thing will work and we understand that. its a reason why It doesnt go into exact detail of how the transition will be like because we dont know exactly how it will be like.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
