Quote:
Originally Posted by freebeard
Via sendler
But the problem is the institutions influence the markets already, but not to fit the goal
of human (or insect!) survival. Pesticides (looking at you Round-Up friendly GMOs) appear to be the killshot.
He worked in the same field as another Nobel prize winner, Hannes Alfven.
Alfven waves are fundamental to the Electric Universe theory.
Harsh. Redneck and Oil Pan 4 don't escape either. Mind reading is one thing, but [uncredentialed] diagnosis at a distance is an entirely other.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism#Early_socialism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_Purchase
Louisiana Purchase 1803 is prior to the Paris Commune in 1848. |
The pursuit of climate-related information has intersected with neuroscience at times,and many messengers have, and continue to point to developmental and structural neurological anomalies and mechanisms within the population, germane to the cognitive dissonance,often exhibited in association with observations and comments made by some.
I've been observing repeating patterns of commentary for months now,which causes me to wonder if I'm witnessing analogues to conditions reported by others.
It's been determined that critical thinking is not a given,and even though all humans have (had) the facility to acquire certain knowledge,it's no
guarantee that they'll acquire it.
I feel like I'm experiencing an intellectual cul-de-sac,when some continue to regurgitate the same arguments over and over,which belie a lack of self-critical introspection,devoid of any apparent attempt to self-diagnose fault,which Richard Feynman insisted all would-be scientists undergo.It's a failure of scientific thinking.
There's some blind faith in the supremacy of economic arguments against climate policy proposals,which presupposes superior mastery of climate science knowledge on the part of economists.
Their arguments would necessitate exhibits of supra-climate science-knowledge-based prima facie evidence.
With these certain particulars,the arguments would certainly fall in favor of economists.
Should that be the case,then the entire blame and responsibility for global climate change would fall squarely on the shoulders of economists.Knowledge of last resort.
And it would be incumbent upon the economics community to bear the cost of reparations to those who've suffered loss of life ,property,and pursuit of happiness,since 1958.
If,on inspection,economists were found lacking the certain particulars to prove their arguments,then perhaps it would be prudent to defer to the scientific community for matters concerning science-related policy.