‘A new phase’: why climate activists are turning to sabotage instead of protest

[RE]

Yeah, AI is amazing.

Both sides of the climate debate share the belief that "we" have practically infinite reserves of fossil fuels and minerals.

Is a dead giveaway.  That is a total crock of shit.

Indeed.  Practically all discussion regarding resources since publication of the Limits to Growth study in the 1970s has focused on the fact you can't have infinite growth in a finite world.  Energy in particular has been examined in excruciating detail WRT the diminishing number of new discoveries and the decreasing EROEI of new discoveries.  The whole reason Fracking has become necessary is because conventional oil fields are mostly played out, or on their way.

Besides energy, resource constraints on everything from topsoil to sand for concrete have been subject for discussion, not to mention rare earth elements, phosphates for fertlizer and high quality coal for steel making.  The statement is so blatantly false and dropped on right at the beginning of the post I didn't bother reading the rest of it.

Far as the use of AI for generating arguments goes,  IMHO it diminishes the validity of the arguments and reflects lazy thinking on the part of the poster.  I'm not interested in having a debate with a machine, anymore than I enjoy playing chess against the computer.   It's too sterile and lacks humanity.

RE

[K-Dog]

My AI is bigger than his AI.

[RE]

My AI is bigger than his AI.

Yah.  It's the latest competition between Billionaires.   Instead of who has the biggest Super Yacht, it;s who has the biggest AI Data Center.





How many terawatts of power did you consume this year Mark?  How about you Elon?

RE

[jupiviv]

All I got from that is you've invented a very interesting form ad hominem - ai-generated accusations of other people writing or talking like ai, and it's a follow up to the earlier, more affective troll accusation you made through that bot account. You have a problem with me bc you don't like what I'm saying yet can't articulate that beyond criticizing my use of terms you're unfamiliar with, which backfired. Stop being chickenshit and just blatantly say that and then we can start talking like humans.

[jupiviv]

Practically all discussion regarding resources since publication of the Limits to Growth study in the 1970s has focused on the fact you can't have infinite growth in a finite world.

Practically all discussion about that study ranges from calling it alarmism to a kooky eugenics manifesto. Here's an excerpt from the NYT review of the paper on the year of publication:

"The Limits to Growth," in our view, is an empty and misleading work. Its imposing apparatus of computer technology and systems jargon conceals a kind of intellectual Rube Goldberg device—one which takes arbitrary assumptions, shakes them up and comes out with arbitrary conclusions that have the ring of science. "Limits" pretends to a degree of certainty so exaggerated as to obscure the few modest (and unoriginal) insights that it genuinely con tains. Less than pseudoscience and little more than polemical fiction, "The Limits to Growth" is best summarized not as a rediscovery of the laws of nature but as a rediscovery of the oldest maxim of computer science: Garbage In, Garbage Out.
https://www.nytimes.com/1972/04/02/archives/the-limits-to-growth-a-report-for-the-club-of-romes-project-on-the.html

Surprisingly, and hilariously, this is the exact same ad hom accusation of supposedly sterile non-human computer logic that isn't even worth engaging with that both of you have just directed at me.

[RE]

All I got from that is you've invented a very interesting form ad hominem - ai-generated accusations of other people writing or talking like ai, and it's a follow up to the earlier, more affective troll accusation you made through that bot account. You have a problem with me bc you don't like what I'm saying yet can't articulate that beyond criticizing my use of terms you're unfamiliar with, which backfired. Stop being chickenshit and just blatantly say that and then we can start talking like humans.

That is a non-denial response.

Do you deny your post was AI generated?

RE

[RE]

Practically all discussion regarding resources since publication of the Limits to Growth study in the 1970s has focused on the fact you can't have infinite growth in a finite world.

Practically all discussion about that study ranges from calling it alarmism to a kooky eugenics manifesto.

Visit the Post Carbon Institute for another opinion.

RE

[K-Dog]

All I got from that is you've invented a very interesting form ad hominem - ai-generated accusations of other people writing or talking like ai, and it's a follow up to the earlier, more affective troll accusation you made through that bot account. You have a problem with me bc you don't like what I'm saying yet can't articulate that beyond criticizing my use of terms you're unfamiliar with, which backfired. Stop being chickenshit and just blatantly say that and then we can start talking like humans.

Do you deny your post was AI generated?

RE

You admit to being an idiot or you used AI.  Which is it?  You deny using AI, and take credit full credit for the ridiculous bullshit you put out then.  Fine, admit to being a shill then.

Your 1972 article was pure hack contrarian garbage.  There is nothing that can be disagreed with concerning the Limits to Growth study.  The Limits to Growth study is pure math.  System dynamics applied to real world data.  You can disagree with reality, and be an idiot, or not.  That is your choice.  But denying reality is not just another point of view.  That is only what children and men in black get paid to do.

Concerning LTG you do not get to disagree with the study in the Diner.  I have more respect for myself than to let you.  I put at least a hundred hours duplicating the computer program the LTG study used from the original MIT Dynamo manual, and here it is.  To  say I understand the LTG study is a gross understatement.  I can duplicate the fucking work.

https://chasingthesquirrel.com/dynamo.php

The actual manual can be seen under the book icon.

* My AI really is bigger than your AI.  Curtis Yarvin has nothing on me.  Far as that goes compared to me, the ignorant mofo is a wanna be.

[jupiviv]

You admit to being an idiot or you used AI.  Which is it?  You deny using AI, and take credit full credit for the ridiculous bullshit you put out then.  Fine, admit to being a shill then.

The ai generated accusation that I write like ai was genuinely funny but this is undisguised rancor. Come up with a better fallacy.

Concerning LTG you do not get to disagree with the study in the Diner.  I have more respect for myself than to let you.  I put at least a hundred hours duplicating the computer program the LTG study used from the original MIT Dynamo manual, and here it is.  To  say I understand the LTG study is a gross understatement.  I can duplicate the fucking work.

You don't get to mischaracterize me because I said something you dislike. I'm not here to prove anything or make friends but I draw the line at precisely this kind of virulent horseshit. I post in doomer spaces to vent thoughts that can't be discussed irl. Some people engage with it like human beings and move on, others get mad like you because collapse awareness can be retrofitted into almost every variant of self-serving fantasy politics. I don't give a shit except to fear the impending mass culture version of the paranoid schizo "argument" we've just finished having. Find a scapegoat, yell at it, feel like the goodie, let the dopamine take the pain away for a few minutes. Clearly that is the horizon of politics in a dying system but I would prefer not to.

[RE]

The ai generated accusation that I write like ai was genuinely funny but this is undisguised rancor. Come up with a better fallacy.

Saying it's a fallacy implies that you take credit for writing the post and did not use AI.  If that is the case, it's not funny, it's sad.  Besides the factual errors, stylistically it's a mess.  The AI Kdog used was better than your prose, both in style and in content.  Quite accurate in its critique.

RE

[K-Dog]

Come up with a better fallacy.........You don't get to mischaracterize me because I said something you dislike.

This is my space.  I can do what I want.  Your insults gets you a week in the cooler.

The Diner does not need trolls and thoughtstoppers.