TheVat

Chuckle. Erm, I think by wealthy he means nations, i.e. most people who live in the Europe, US, Japan, ME, etc. and enjoy a high-resource high-carbon footprint lifestyle. He wasn't meaning just billionaires?

Rubber science, for sure. Except light sails, laser stations, the modes with external push. Again, maybe why Von Neuman devices could be more feasible - one the size of a beer can, with light sail wings. The physics is known, but I don't know how far the engineering will go. We are talking civs with massively elongated time frames, a hypothetical entity at this point. (shrug)

Agree that all such socially structured causes have deeper roots. If we can't fix dopamine rushes, maybe we could try some form of socialism and combine it with Green ideas. The Scandinavian Model seems to go that direction. And consuming less has reached the status of a fad in some wealthy countries, though it's really hard to say how far that will go. People who embrace Marie Kondo or home minimalism or Tiny Houses may not always stick with that. A minimalism that made community sharing its focus (as the Japanese fellow spoke of) would probably need a near-miraculous resurgence of the Counterculture in the US. I.e. Americans would be more motivated by framing it in terms of less housework, more disposable income, fewer time payments...

Everyone suffers somewhat, because under extreme regimes the truth is a casualty. And telling the truth becomes hazardous to your health. And even if you're an old quiet guy who just putters in his garden and reads pulp novels, you're not an island - you experience the weight that lies on everyone around you, the constant threat to anyone waving their freak flag, books vanishing from library shelves and stores, and so on.

Technical analysis of this kind is useful IF we have reason to assume that a civilization millennia ahead of us still uses impulse rocketry for starfaring. So that assumption deserves scrutiny as well. Getting whacked by an interstellar proton does seem like a potentially serious problem, especially von Neuman machines with nanoscale engineering. Imagine a civ has molecule scale memory and you are stored as a miniature thumb drive aboard and after a thousand parsecs you're full of flipped bits or whatever. Woops, there goes third grade...there goes first kiss... Asimov. One S. Yes, hyperspace was a handy sci-fi workaround. Plenty of sci-fi writers took that route - Niven, Herbert, Heinlein, Clarke, et al. Such a story device is called rubber science . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber_science

Short term self-interest among plutocrats sounds like another way to say "capitalism." Or "late stage capitalism" anyway. I will try to answer your points better tomorrow.

The Von Neuman hypothesis strikes me as the most neutral in its assumptions: for whatever reason, advanced civs may send out self-replicating units in the millions (and thence to billions via replication) and they just blanket all star systems in the spectral range most hospitable to life. Or not. Other filters are possible. We can't say what cost/benefit ratio is determined by a K2-plus civilization, or if anthropological fascination has anything to do with it, or what ethos they may have about contact, or if carbon-based life is seen as interesting...or just an old-fashioned and disgusting fetish that preceded the Glorious Uploading. Or quaint, and as @Moontanman mentioned, a niche hobby for some tiny fraction that studies emerging sentience. If aliens were machine intelligences, they could have some form of immortality that would open up motivations we can't conceive of, where shutting down for a ten thousand year journey would be routine. Or a nice field trip for fourth graders.

I fear the GOP could have some success stoking fear through distorted reporting on campus violence. Amanda Marcotte made some sharp observations yesterday in Salon, on how TFG et al are doing this to further depict the Left as all lawless hooligans. https://www.salon.com/2024/05/03/donald-is-using-campus-to-stoke-right-wing-violence-for-the/ Despite all the hysteria in the punditry about campus protests against the war in Gaza, by and large, the student activists have been peaceful. Even at Columbia University, where an ill-advised police crackdown caused an inevitably angry reaction from protesters that led to a building occupation, this has been true. As former Washington Post journalist Paul Waldman explained in his newsletter, "People who have actually reported from the protests (see here or here) have by and large found them to be well-behaved." The vast majority of scary, violent images stem not from the protesters themselves, Waldman argues, but from the police crackdowns. "At the universities where the administrators had the sense to just let the students have their say, there has been almost no violence." As the cable news has breathlessly covered, there was violence this week at UCLA. But even then, it was not the leftist protesters to blame, but a gang of far-right counter-protesters who rushed in and started to attack students. As ABC 7 reported, violence only broke out "when counter-protesters tried to break down the encampment." Unfortunately, this was framed by much of the media as "clashes" between protesters and the right-wing assailants. Any good faith reading of the situation is clear: The far-right demonstrators stormed the encampment and started the violence. The student protesters were defending themselves.

Reading this Japanese philosopher on degrowth and moving away from capitalism, towards "eco socialism," I thought this might be pertinent to overpop and resource use under the present system. https://www.salon.com/2024/05/03/why-climate-change-action-requires-degrowth-to-make-our-planet-sustainable/ ...Saito's argument, as translated by Brian Bergstrom, is that climate change exists because humans as a species prioritize economic growth instead of economic sustainability. Capitalism itself, Saito asserts, is unsustainable. Even though well-meaning liberal politicians like to push for Green New Deals in the hope of continuing non-stop economic growth without the consequent ecological harm, Saito argues capitalist societies need to perpetually consume resources to remain prosperous. As a result, capitalism itself inevitably brings about planet-wide problems like climate change, habitat destruction, plastic pollution and other environmental issues. The only solution is for humanity as a whole to slow down our obsession with work, productivity and materialism. Notably, Saito stresses that the bulk of the burden to consume less falls on the wealthiest among us.

I was going to reply similarly - a Kardashev scale II or III civilization could do more with Von Neuman devices than we could. At that point, a probability analysis shifts from the rigors/cost of crossing interstellar space to how likely is a K2 or above society. An analysis for which data (that we puny humans could access) is lacking. In any case, I agree the probability of a VN seeded galaxy seems much higher than ET biological entities in ships that play peekaboo and have well-stocked proctology clinics. (though given healthcare costs in the States, could anyone complain about being snatched up for a free endoscopy session?)

Living in a pretty conservative region, I understand this option well.

Great stuff. Bach innovated in so many ways, counterpoint, modulation, four part harmony, use of dissonant chords, even in stepping back to Dorian mode and others. Always a fan. And provider of Bach jokes.... Why did Bach have 20 children? Because there were no stops in his organ.

I took @Eise to mean that the technological requirements and durations of trips make them low probability events. I am not sure if nearly impossible is how I would put that, though. Where sentient life develops specific goals (of which we humans have a very limited sample), low probability events can be pushed towards much higher frequency. For me, the scientific view is to remain neutral on what other sentient creatures may want or seek. Was there another thread where we talked about the photo plates from 1952? I have to go AFK atm, but maybe worth linking to.

This does seem the practical goal. Reminds me of comedian Chris Rock's idea for gun control - anyone can have all the guns they want, but a bullet costs 10,000 US$. Anyway, if half dozen nations each have one expensive "bullet," aimed at the capital of their principal foe, then we would be closer to taking the planet out of jeopardy. Deterrence would still reign, given that we need our DC, UK needs its London, Russia its Moscow, etc. Of course, it could still feel "Damoclean" for residents of those great cities.

Phytoplankton in the oceans produces around 50% of our oxygen. If land sources were eliminated - and such a catastrophe would likely knock out the plankton as well - it would not be hypoxia that killed us. Atmospheric oxygen would stick around for thousands of years - it's the CO2 buildup (causing hypercapnia, aka CO2 narcosis) that would get us first. Well actually, starvation and broiling, then hypercapnia to mop up any survivors. If humans were foolish enough to let all plants die off, I think they would be few and not equal to such tasks as farming big ponds of chlorella or other champion photosynthesizers.

One of Oliver's best reports. Re secrecy, my feeling has long been (based on endlessly recurring news of government leaks) that the federal government is incredibly bad at keeping secrets and couldn't maintain a decades-long conspiracy if their lives depended on it. At best, they draw across a veil that's supposed to be a blackout curtain and only achieve a smudgy shower door. If nothing else were to leak on a particular investigation, allow some time passing and glitches in chain of command and you will get bureaucratic bungling. Or an Ed Snowden. Or both.

Haven't read full paper yet but imagine they would consider hydrothermal ocean vents for sources of metals like moly. From all I've gleaned over some years it seems like many early chemosynthesis roads lead back to the hot vents. A lot of interesting metabolism-first prebiotic hypotheses go to the vents. Hydrothermal vents/chimneys are pretty porous so there are large surface areas of potentially catalytic minerals, through which vent effluents circulate under high pressure and across large temperature gradients. I can see N fixation happening there in those massive geochemistry reactors. (nice, btw, to suddenly find more threads that are not on fundamental physics - not that FP isn't wonderful, but my comfort level is higher in biochemistry and biology generally)(at least I can follow the equations better, haha) I will donate one, in your name.

I think this is where a misunderstanding arose, as the discussion shifted away somewhat from the OP. I take your and @toucana point as to where the thread started, so I didn't make clear that I thought the thread had moved a bit and was trying to follow that. My point goes to the substantial difference (especially re the fate of Earth's supporting ecosystems) between any nuclear exchange and all the other historical forms of massive death you described. I won't rehash that, but anyone who wants to review previous posts is welcome to. I agree there is a legitimate moment of self-defense in a war, but I tried (and failed) to make some points as to how a nuclear "defense" can ultimately kill so many people who are not attacking. Therein lies the problem of proportionality, as well as Geneva issues, plus the migration of radionuclides and weather effects to friendly nations, also addressed by me and others. Again, I didn't communicate well that I see this as more than just a form of the Trolley Problem, because of the unique implications of annihilating an entire (or several entire) cities (and what that opens up, in terms of a larger war). We don't have to explore them here. I gave it a shot, but will step aside so others can resume with the original question.

Substrate-level phosphorylation? Quicker and less efficient than oxidative phosphorylation. A fermentation process, like in yeast and some bacteria. Oh, and erythrocytes, which have no mito.

Of course. But that's not the issue being discussed in this thread. That is the issue of is it okay to kill over a hundred thousand civilians to save soldiers lives, and to initiate the first use of a WMD to do so? I wasn't comparing Truman to Eichmann, just drawing an analogy to say we don't just go by job performance. I'm sure Eichmann held that he was defending Germans from the menace of Jews taking over the economy and Aryan culture. He rated German Gentile lives way above Jewish lives. Every evil has its attendant moral justification. And you are ignoring my other points, which makes me feel I'm just wasting time now. Not a strong analogy. No one is proposing uninvention - an absurd concept. With guns, as with nukes, many propose a ban. The point is not having a gun pointed at everyone's head because it nurtures life and happiness and freedom from chronic fear. These are goals of civilization, or so I've heard. Erasure of knowledge would be a terrible idea - we absolutely need to remember what these weapons are and what they can do.

When Adolph Eichmann defended his actions this way, the jury was oddly unpersuaded. Generally "just doing his job" is not seen as adequate justification for mass murder of civilians. Anyway, you are making an equivalence between combatants and civilians. Many people, as well as the Geneva convention, view this differently. I don't doubt your morality, just saying this thread invites people to reflect on where those moral principles lead, if applied by everyone. Really? That was an element of Truman's argument. Kill 150,000 Japanese with an A-bomb, save hundreds of thousands more Japanese and Allied soldiers lives. We were discussing that earlier, and some were dubious that was what would happen. And the reasoning holds water if we are looking at a contemplated thermonuclear exchange where parties either a) choose not to use nukes and lose hundreds of thousands of soldiers, or b) choose to use nukes and billions of innocent people die, due to knock-on effects from destroyed agriculture, nuclear winter, radioactive contamination, etc. Call me crazy, but the loss of life scenario where soldiers die but we don't wipe out a large percent of the human race seems the better one.

I am curious as to why you think the ethics of nukes or other WMD would not be pertinent to politics and "devolve" a thread. I would be shocked by your assertion that city-annihilating nukes are okay for defending your loved ones, but I know you like being provocative, so I'm not. Seriously, do you really think a weapon that could destroy all or most of human life on the planet and turn vast areas into radioactive wastelands is a reasonable sort of defense for your preferred group? (Geordie has underscored the practical problem) How long do you think we would all last if everyone embraced this view?

Well, really, contempt for human life and murdering medical staff does have some parallels with Israel's current tactics which are ignoring clauses of the Geneva Convention (1949, btw) quite thoroughly. I know you are a careful observer of news, so you can't have missed this. But I wasn't trying to make a perfect analogy, just point out that saving lives doesn't require some binary choice where the only choices are mass starvation or an entire city is annihilated. Others here have pointed out that there were other options to bring a Japanese surrender. But those didn't provide a way to show Russia how big a stick we now had. I wasn't saying they were completely noncombatants. No city in Japan could possibly have been so, given the massive national mobilization in that war. Again, I was making a different and broader point - that when you annihilate a city, you will kill mostly civilians, and violate that Geneva clause mentioned above. How can we Americans claim moral superiority over the Japanese if, after condemning them for indiscriminate mass murder, we then engage in same? As an American, I've given this some thought, and I feel strongly that this was a barbarous and shameful chapter in our history in which we cannot claim a moral high road. I will simply not validate Hiroshima and give the monstrous atrocity of a nuclear attack some veneer of moral value. That's a Strangelovian step I cannot make, so we may have to disagree on that.

It is the sort of point that dissolves like cheap toilet paper on scrutiny. To offer a quick exposure of the absurdity, consider the situation of Palestinians especiallly those facing starvation in Gaza. Clearly, dropping a high-yield nuke on Tel Aviv would save thousands in Gaza from the kind of death you describe. They will likely be dead if Israel continues its present mode of warfare and obstruction of UN aid for another six months. And most of them are not soldiers who have had some preparation for facing death - most of them are women and children with zero involvement in any aggression towards Israel. Generally, all of these "saving lives" arguments operate on the morally abhorrent principle that "our lives are of more value than their lives, so yeah, let's nuke a whole city full of noncombatants."

I was going to mention this. I experience schadenfreude more often than I'd care to say. And sometimes a touch of weltschmertz. Recently, I was feeling a sort of lethargy and sleepiness which I get intermittently in the Spring. The German word for this is Frühjahrsmüdigkeit. Generally, I can see how Germans have that penchant for fields like philosophy and psychology, because they will develop very precise and specific terms for so many things. To help out those cunning linguists in Germany, I have coined a term for @geordief s experience with potato eating: Notwendigkeitkartoffelnzufertigmachenschmertz.