io9 
Enter your username and password.
San Francisco, 6:03 AM
Tue Nov 10
25 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors: tips@io9.com
Editor-in-Chief:
Annalee Newitz | Email
News Editor:
Charlie Jane Anders | Email
Associate Editor:
Meredith Woerner | Email
Assistant Editor:
Lauren Davis | Email
Weekend Editor:
Graeme McMillan | Email
Contributors:
Joshua Glenn
Stephen Goldmeier | Email
Ed Grabianowski | Email
Austin Grossman
Paul Hogan | Email
Lauren Davis | Email
Chris Hsiang | Email
Lynn Peril | Email
Ann VanderMeer
Alasdair Wilkins | Email
Graphic Designer:
Stephanie Fox | Email
Interns:
Tim Barribeau | Email
Julia Carusillo | Email
Alex Eichler | Email
Cyriaque Lamar | Email
Caitlin Petrakovitz | Email
Mary Ratliff | Email
Josh Snyder | Email
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
11/09/09
"Political science" isn't meant to be taken literally.
11/09/09
11/09/09
Oh really, 10,000 whole years? Wow, a species manages to stick around for a few millennia and and it's all set to discover perpetual motion, fairy dust, or whatever fantasy technology it's going to take to bring about his bright, exponentially expanding, no-strings-attached future.
Which is just going off his opening about how the critics of his Kurzweil love letter believe: "that, just as bacteria proliferating in a petri dish will eventually exhaust the resources, we too will hit a limit. I think these skeptics are missing the lessons of history"
What's the lesson? That just because humans haven't yet hit a limit on the finite amount of resources on the planet, that there must not be one?
And then there's this: "Unlike Malthus, we can look around and see that we already have the energy and technology to feed a larger population than exists on Earth today." Yes, I'm sure it's easy to see when you're sitting around in New York, in the United States, and not, say, some country where starvation is a routine occurrence. I'm sure JT can also see how much bigger a population we can feed and also when we'll have to stop the growth of the human population at its current rate, and also how to do this without hurting anybody's feelings. #ecology
11/09/09
Unfortunately this is pretty common--an unwavering faith in progress that denies the reality that nothing in this world comes without consequences. #ecology
11/09/09
11/09/09
(b) As I and every other mathematician keep saying, EXPONENTIAL GROWTH DOES NOT LEAD TO A SINGULARITY. THERE IS NO BLOW-UP IN FINITE TIME UNDER THESE CONDITIONS. THIS IS COVERED IN CALCULUS 2, PEOPLE! #ecology
11/09/09
The Dark Ages were a myth, expounded by Renaissance scholars and those with an axe to grind against the Roman Catholic Church.
Recent excavations and discoveries in Europe and England have revealed the whole idea that humanity dwindled into a technological and social backwater is, in the words on one scholar, pure bollocks.
Watch just one season of Time Team and you'll quickly come to realise the Europeans of that time were far from technologically and socially backwards. #ecology
11/09/09
11/09/09
Do I have your permission to use that term? #ecology
11/09/09
[en.wikipedia.org] #ecology
11/09/09
11/09/09
So the irony here is staggering, and he obviously doesn't realize it. #ecology
11/09/09
11/09/09
11/09/09
11/09/09
11/09/09
Hmmmmmm
:P
11/09/09
Wasn't "Malthus Vs. The Singularity" an episode of CHUCK? The one where Bryce Larkin bailed out for WHITE COLLAR? #ecology
11/09/09
#ecology
11/09/09
Just keep putting pollution into the air and it will do something bad.
Yes the Earth does go thru climate cycles and we all know that one but greenhouse gasses do bring as temperature up and that one is proved in labs.
As far as I think nowadays I will go on record as stating that Global Warming is due to both the natural Earth Climate along with us polluting the air.Both things are happening and both are casuing climate issues. #ecology
11/09/09
We have decades? Where's the evidence for that? Moreover, if it boils down to adapting, I'd like to remind Mr. Tierney that species do NOT adapt to significant changes to the environment in a matter of decades, not even us oh-mighty humans. #ecology
11/09/09
11/09/09
11/09/09
When there is a need to evolve or adapt with speed, biological systems will find a way. #ecology
01:16 AM
Humans have none of those characteristics, so our species' "rate of evolution" is much slower than that of those examples you mentioned.
11/09/09
Two words: Homeless People.
I also like how his post about Kurzweil's Law basically boils down to "This time it's different." #ecology
11/09/09
In fact, I am going to start hoarding now so I am prepared, when brains become the new gold standard, i don't want to be left behind. #ecology
11/09/09
If the science can't stand up to scrutiny, then it's crap science and should be publicly questioned. The real problem are the people that treat Global Warming like it is some kind of religion, attacking anyone who happens to disagree with said religion. Science attacks the argument, not the person behind the argument, and by failing to do this the pro-global warming crowd surrenders any sort of legitimacy. As far as I'm concerned, the only legitimate pro global warming advocate is Ed Bagely Jr., who actually walks the walk, and isn't trying to make others feel like garbage for living their lives in the mainstream so they'll go buy the solar panels and carbon credits they somewhat secretly have a financial stake in. Yes Al, I'm talking about you, ya empty suit with daddy issues.
So anyway, if you want to be adult and scientific about the whole thing, hows about calling them the anti-global warming crowd, instead of this PR spin Denier garbage? Science is a debate, not a religion, so lets not blur the lines here ok? #ecology
11/09/09
11/09/09
Why don't they get legitimate scientific criticisms published in peer-reviewed scientific papers instead of the political mainstream media? Oh right, because of that massive conspiracy.
11/09/09
btw, I assume you checked each one's rep out yourself? Hey wait a minute, are you even QUALIFIED to determine whether a scientist is reputable in terms of global warming? I smell something fishy here... #ecology
11/09/09
For the record, I'm NOT a denier.
I live in Australia where there has been drought for 15 years. It used to rain on my birthday, but last year there were record highs. We're going through the longest and hottest heatwave in November on record. Dust clouds are stopping our major cities from functioning properly.
There is no doubt in my mind all of this is directly related to human activity and climate change.
However, the way the "mainstream" locks out the "fringe" science - no matter how scientifically valuable it actually is - is my biggest fear in all this.
If you're a scientist who's paid by Exxon, no matter what you find or prove for or against climate change, it will not be considered for scientific consideration by the Royal Society of Scientists.
This is fact, not conspiracy.
Climate change supporters constantly say to those who offer up alternative reasons for climate change to "get your paper peer reviewed". And yet those publications which do peer reviews DO NOT ACCEPT THOSE PAPERS because of who they are commissioned by.
So I ask - how is this science?
How is denying a whole range of papers on this topic proper scientific evaluation simply because they're not paid for by the "right people" acceptable to the scientific community? #ecology
11/09/09
This is what various science-deniers (young-earth creationists, climate change "skeptics," etc.) don't get about the state of science today. It is in every scientist's best interests to jump on anything that OPPOSES the mainstream consensus on any topic, because it gets you noticed and makes you into the lead guy on an avenue of research that no one else is pursuing. Academic researchers in the physical sciences are about the WORST group one could choose to form a conspiracy to suppress information.
When a theory DOESN'T constantly get called into question in this way, it speaks to the strength of the evidence in support of it (this also helps explain why you can always find someone on the fringe to oppose anything, since there's some value in being the only one saying something, even when one is clearly wrong). Science doesn't get it right 100% of the time, but the incentive to publish original ideas and stand out from the crowd gives scientists one of the most powerful checks against mindless conformity of any group in human history. #ecology
11/09/09
12:06 AM