A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Amateur Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Climate change could cause mass exodus by mid century



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #611  
Old July 14th 16, 11:16 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris L Peterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,007
Default Climate change could cause mass exodus by mid century

On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 15:02:05 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 5:11:14 PM UTC-4, peterson wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 13:47:15 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

In most cases, the car will be able to stop, because it will be aware
of the situation much earlier than a human driver.

That is not the scenario, the car is subject to the laws of physics and no, the car will not be "aware" of anything.


That may not be the scenario you've tried to concoct, but it's a far
more realistic one.


This doesn't concern a scenario where the car can come to a stop, or a scenario where the car can safely swerve without hitting the the child. It has to do with a scenario where those two outcomes are not possible, and who should get to decide who gets killed in the resulting accident.


Constructing an unrealistic scenario doesn't help anyone understand
the actual issues that automated cars will have to deal with.

So the driver/passenger doesn't get to decide?


Thankfully, no.


Then you wouldn't have any problem with riding in a car programmed to kill you in an emergency that you didn't cause.


I would not have any problem riding in a car where one possible
outcome of an emergency situation is my death, any more than I do
riding in a car that someone else is driving, or an airplane that
someone else if flying.
  #612  
Old July 14th 16, 11:17 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,472
Default Climate change could cause mass exodus by mid century

On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 5:16:51 PM UTC-4, peterson wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 13:57:51 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

You know that, do you? How much of that technology spilled out into
other areas? How many private companies were involved (there were
private companies in soviet Russia)? How many people got rich and had
money to spend on luxury products?


The average Soviet did not benefit, but did have to work to support their space program. Maybe a few people who didn't create any wealth did manage to acquire some anyway.


What does the "average Soviet" have to do with anything. We're talking
about wealth creation, not wealth distribution.


Wealth redistribution is what socialism is all about, peterson. Wealth creation... not so much.

Again, only because you confuse economic socialism with social
systems.


The only way that governments can spread wealth around is if someone else creates some first.


Wealth is created in many ways. By individuals. By companies.


So far, so good.

By organizations.


Be more specific.

By governments.


BZZZZZT! Wrong answer!


The issue of creating wealth, and the issue of spreading it around are
very different. You seem confused. It is not clear which you are
actually talking about.


I'm not confused. Capitalism creates wealth, socialism does nothing but spread it around.

Why do you lump NASA and social programs, the first specific and the
latter broad and undefined?


NASA never really made the average person wealthier.


Again with the "average person"? You're confusing yourself.


No, I have a clear concept of "average person."

That said, I think that most people have had their personal wealth
increased because of the investments made by NASA. That is an agency
that has created a great deal more wealth than it has expended.


It certainly has been interesting following some of their missions and seeing some of the scientific results. But the private sector would have ditched the space shuttle early on and replaced it with a better manned vehicle ASAP. NASA, a government agency not needing to show a profit, stumbled on with it for decades.

It seems extremely unlikely that the country would be wealthier
without NASA. It has generated vast amounts of the technology that
drives much of our economy today.


Actually, most of that technology came FROM the private sector, since NASA paid private contractors to build things.


And where did NASA get the money? From public funds.


IE, confiscated money.

What do you think
it means for the government to build wealth?


I've not seen examples of it having done that. Do you have any?

The government always
spends most of its money in the civilian sector. Even the military
does that.


Had the civilian sector been able to just keep its money (wealth) it would probably have found more productive uses for it, generating more wealth.

  #613  
Old July 14th 16, 11:31 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,472
Default Climate change could cause mass exodus by mid century

On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 5:09:46 PM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:
wsnell01 wrote:
On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 1:06:56 PM UTC-4, palsing wrote:
On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 5:18:02 AM UTC-7, wsne... wrote:
On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 6:41:11 PM UTC-4, palsing wrote:
On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 8:14:19 AM UTC-7, wsne... wrote:
On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 10:05:23 AM UTC-4, peterson wrote:

Which I specifically answered: "While I would not be in favor of a
change that reduces free expression". What do you find unclear there?

You did not answer my specific question with a yes/no answer.

Since you insist on yes/no answers to specific questions, tell us, Snell, do
you still beat your wife? Yes or no...

Yours is a loaded question, IOW a "complex" question. It makes
presumptions and does not reflect reality.

You don't think your question is also a loaded question? A complex
question? Of course it is!


The tunnel problem is a plausible scenario. The car can't brake in time
but it can easily divert itself a few degrees over the remaining
distance, hitting the wall and killing its passenger(s).

Now YOU have to answer the question of whether you would ride in a car
that was pre-programmed to do so. Would you? That's a simple question.




My question to peterson was a hypothetical question, based on the fact
that an automated car will either run over the child or swerve to avoid
the child, depending on the design/programming decisions that were
made, or not made, prior to the incident.

I'm pretty sure that 'programming' is the wrong word here...


If a robot isn't programmed, it won't operate.

Let us know if there are any words in there that you do not understand, palsing.

I'm pretty sure that I'm not the guy here who is having trouble with definitions...


I'm pretty sure that I'm not the guy here who is having trouble with definitions...

(See, I can say that too, only I'm right.)


It's not a plausible scenario. How does the child get into the tunnel.


The child isn't in the tunnel. He is in the middle of the road leading into the tunnel.

The
sensors on the cars should detect the movement towards the tunnel and slow
down.


That's just hand-waving.

All these theoretical problems ignore the details. A vague state ment
is not enough.


The laws of physics dictate that it will take time for the car to stop, and in this case there is not enough time.

More details for your scenario.


The car can't stop in time. The car can't swerve without hitting the walls adjoining the tunnel entrance. The child was hidden behind a tree before suddenly entering the road.

The problem is: Who should decide what the car does in this scenario?
  #614  
Old July 14th 16, 11:47 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,472
Default Climate change could cause mass exodus by mid century

On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 6:16:22 PM UTC-4, peterson wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 15:02:05 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 5:11:14 PM UTC-4, peterson wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 13:47:15 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

In most cases, the car will be able to stop, because it will be aware
of the situation much earlier than a human driver.

That is not the scenario, the car is subject to the laws of physics and no, the car will not be "aware" of anything.

That may not be the scenario you've tried to concoct, but it's a far
more realistic one.


This doesn't concern a scenario where the car can come to a stop, or a scenario where the car can safely swerve without hitting the the child. It has to do with a scenario where those two outcomes are not possible, and who should get to decide who gets killed in the resulting accident.


Constructing an unrealistic scenario doesn't help anyone understand
the actual issues that automated cars will have to deal with.


This IS an issue that automated cars will have to deal with. Pedestrians DO step out in front of cars, peterson.


So the driver/passenger doesn't get to decide?

Thankfully, no.


Then you wouldn't have any problem with riding in a car programmed to kill you in an emergency that you didn't cause.


I would not have any problem riding in a car where one possible
outcome of an emergency situation is my death, any more than I do
riding in a car that someone else is driving, or an airplane that
someone else if flying.


A survey showed that fully two-thirds of people would prefer that the car be programmed to hit the child. Even if only a small percentage preferred that, they should still get to make that decision for themselves. It's called freedom and individuality, peterson.

Here's another scenario, from

http://www.slate.com/articles/techno..._quandary.html

Which motorcyclist will the automated car "decide" to hit, the one wearing a helmet or the one NOT wearing a helmet?



  #615  
Old July 14th 16, 11:58 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,472
Default Climate change could cause mass exodus by mid century

On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 10:46:58 AM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:


Try these questions for size. This is what democracy is about.


https://sturdyblog.files.wordpress.c...314-083623.jpg

Questions to ask the powerful.
From Tony Benn


If asked of a President of the US:


WHAT POWER HAVE YOU GOT?


See the Constitution.

WHERE DID YOU GET IT FROM?


The Constitution.

IN WHOSE INTERESTS DO YOU EXERCISE IT?


I am sworn to defend the Constitution.

TO WHOM ARE YOU ACCOUNTABLE?


The Senate and the Chief Justice.

HOW CAN WE GET RID OF YOU?


Impeachment, or wait for my first re-election bid.


  #616  
Old July 15th 16, 12:00 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Mike Collins[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,824
Default Climate change could cause mass exodus by mid century

wrote:
On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 5:09:46 PM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:
wsnell01 wrote:
On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 1:06:56 PM UTC-4, palsing wrote:
On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 5:18:02 AM UTC-7, wsne... wrote:
On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 6:41:11 PM UTC-4, palsing wrote:
On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 8:14:19 AM UTC-7, wsne... wrote:
On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 10:05:23 AM UTC-4, peterson wrote:

Which I specifically answered: "While I would not be in favor of a
change that reduces free expression". What do you find unclear there?

You did not answer my specific question with a yes/no answer.

Since you insist on yes/no answers to specific questions, tell us, Snell, do
you still beat your wife? Yes or no...

Yours is a loaded question, IOW a "complex" question. It makes
presumptions and does not reflect reality.

You don't think your question is also a loaded question? A complex
question? Of course it is!

The tunnel problem is a plausible scenario. The car can't brake in time
but it can easily divert itself a few degrees over the remaining
distance, hitting the wall and killing its passenger(s).

Now YOU have to answer the question of whether you would ride in a car
that was pre-programmed to do so. Would you? That's a simple question.




My question to peterson was a hypothetical question, based on the fact
that an automated car will either run over the child or swerve to avoid
the child, depending on the design/programming decisions that were
made, or not made, prior to the incident.

I'm pretty sure that 'programming' is the wrong word here...

If a robot isn't programmed, it won't operate.

Let us know if there are any words in there that you do not understand, palsing.

I'm pretty sure that I'm not the guy here who is having trouble with definitions...

I'm pretty sure that I'm not the guy here who is having trouble with definitions...

(See, I can say that too, only I'm right.)


It's not a plausible scenario. How does the child get into the tunnel.


The child isn't in the tunnel. He is in the middle of the road leading into the tunnel.

Children to not teleport into the centres of roads. The child should be
detectable from a safe distance.

The
sensors on the cars should detect the movement towards the tunnel and slow
down.


That's just hand-waving.

No! See above.

All these theoretical problems ignore the details. A vague state ment
is not enough.


The laws of physics dictate that it will take time for the car to stop,
and in this case there is not enough time.

No! See above.

More details for your scenario.


The car can't stop in time. The car can't swerve without hitting the
walls adjoining the tunnel entrance. The child was hidden behind a tree
before suddenly entering the road.


No! See above.

Also the highway authorities should not allow such hazards. Tunnels need
correct sight lines.
I can't recall driving through any tunnel which didn't have a clear
approach. If there's a toll the traffic will also be moving slowly.

The problem is: Who should decide what the car does in this scenario?

See above.

It's part of the driving test here that you have to be able to detect such
potential hazards.
An auto drive car would have to be better than thus to be accredited.




  #617  
Old July 15th 16, 12:02 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Mike Collins[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,824
Default Climate change could cause mass exodus by mid century

wrote:
On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 10:46:58 AM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:


Try these questions for size. This is what democracy is about.


https://sturdyblog.files.wordpress.c...314-083623.jpg

Questions to ask the powerful.
From Tony Benn


If asked of a President of the US:


WHAT POWER HAVE YOU GOT?


See the Constitution.

WHERE DID YOU GET IT FROM?


The Constitution.

IN WHOSE INTERESTS DO YOU EXERCISE IT?


I am sworn to defend the Constitution.

TO WHOM ARE YOU ACCOUNTABLE?


The Senate and the Chief Justice.

HOW CAN WE GET RID OF YOU?


Impeachment, or wait for my first re-election bid.




That's his point. Lots of persons with power are not elected or publicly
appointed. Like newspaper proprietors.

Like investment bankers.



  #618  
Old July 15th 16, 12:19 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris L Peterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,007
Default Climate change could cause mass exodus by mid century

On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 15:47:00 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 6:16:22 PM UTC-4, peterson wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 15:02:05 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 5:11:14 PM UTC-4, peterson wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 13:47:15 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

In most cases, the car will be able to stop, because it will be aware
of the situation much earlier than a human driver.

That is not the scenario, the car is subject to the laws of physics and no, the car will not be "aware" of anything.

That may not be the scenario you've tried to concoct, but it's a far
more realistic one.

This doesn't concern a scenario where the car can come to a stop, or a scenario where the car can safely swerve without hitting the the child. It has to do with a scenario where those two outcomes are not possible, and who should get to decide who gets killed in the resulting accident.


Constructing an unrealistic scenario doesn't help anyone understand
the actual issues that automated cars will have to deal with.


This IS an issue that automated cars will have to deal with. Pedestrians DO step out in front of cars, peterson.


They will. But choosing between whether to kill the pedestrian or kill
the car occupants will not.

So the driver/passenger doesn't get to decide?

Thankfully, no.

Then you wouldn't have any problem with riding in a car programmed to kill you in an emergency that you didn't cause.


I would not have any problem riding in a car where one possible
outcome of an emergency situation is my death, any more than I do
riding in a car that someone else is driving, or an airplane that
someone else if flying.


A survey showed that fully two-thirds of people would prefer that the car be programmed to hit the child.


Most people are as ignorant of what autonomous programming looks like
as you, so they are unable to competently answer the question. But
when it comes to what most people consider ethical, why would you
think the car wouldn't consider that in its decision making process?

Here's another scenario, from

http://www.slate.com/articles/techno..._quandary.html

Which motorcyclist will the automated car "decide" to hit, the one wearing a helmet or the one NOT wearing a helmet?


I don't know, but I do know that the car will do a better job of
consistently responding than humans.
  #619  
Old July 15th 16, 12:23 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris L Peterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,007
Default Climate change could cause mass exodus by mid century

On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 15:17:33 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 5:16:51 PM UTC-4, peterson wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 13:57:51 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

You know that, do you? How much of that technology spilled out into
other areas? How many private companies were involved (there were
private companies in soviet Russia)? How many people got rich and had
money to spend on luxury products?

The average Soviet did not benefit, but did have to work to support their space program. Maybe a few people who didn't create any wealth did manage to acquire some anyway.


What does the "average Soviet" have to do with anything. We're talking
about wealth creation, not wealth distribution.


Wealth redistribution is what socialism is all about, peterson. Wealth creation... not so much.


A simplistic, and largely inaccurate assessment.

Again, only because you confuse economic socialism with social
systems.

The only way that governments can spread wealth around is if someone else creates some first.


Wealth is created in many ways. By individuals. By companies.


So far, so good.

By organizations.


Be more specific.

By governments.


BZZZZZT! Wrong answer!


We already know that you are ignorant of economics, and can't even use
the term "socialism" properly.

That said, I think that most people have had their personal wealth
increased because of the investments made by NASA. That is an agency
that has created a great deal more wealth than it has expended.


It certainly has been interesting following some of their missions and seeing some of the scientific results. But the private sector would have ditched the space shuttle early on and replaced it with a better manned vehicle ASAP. NASA, a government agency not needing to show a profit, stumbled on with it for decades.


Why would the private sector even have bothered? We only now see the
private sector starting to get involved in manned spaceflight, as well
as some exploratory missions. Why? Because the technology is becoming
mature, courtesy of public investments.


It seems extremely unlikely that the country would be wealthier
without NASA. It has generated vast amounts of the technology that
drives much of our economy today.

Actually, most of that technology came FROM the private sector, since NASA paid private contractors to build things.


And where did NASA get the money? From public funds.


IE, confiscated money.


Yes, that is the sociopathic view.

What do you think
it means for the government to build wealth?


I've not seen examples of it having done that. Do you have any?


Already stated.

The government always
spends most of its money in the civilian sector. Even the military
does that.


Had the civilian sector been able to just keep its money (wealth) it would probably have found more productive uses for it, generating more wealth.


Perhaps. But we'd also be without a great many valuable things that
most of us appreciate. The Internet, modern phone technology, much of
our medical technology. A very long list.
  #620  
Old July 15th 16, 12:25 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,472
Default Climate change could cause mass exodus by mid century

On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 7:00:19 PM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:
wsnell01 wrote:
On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 5:09:46 PM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:


It's not a plausible scenario. How does the child get into the tunnel.


The child isn't in the tunnel. He is in the middle of the road leading into the tunnel.

Children to not teleport into the centres of roads.


Who said they did?

The child should be
detectable from a safe distance.


How so?

Also the highway authorities should not allow such hazards. Tunnels need
correct sight lines.
I can't recall driving through any tunnel which didn't have a clear
approach.


Well then, we'll be spending a huge fortune reworking roads, tunnels, bridges, blind curves, hills, sidewalks, historic neighborhoods, scenic areas, residential streets, city streets, etc., just to accommodate automated cars. Maybe some razor-wire along that parkway?

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
climate change Lord Vath Amateur Astronomy 7 November 22nd 14 04:49 PM
Climate change will change thing, not for the better Uncarollo2 Amateur Astronomy 89 May 8th 14 03:04 PM
Koch funded climate scientist reverses thinking - climate change IS REAL! Uncarollo2 Amateur Astronomy 21 August 8th 12 10:43 PM
Climate change oriel36[_2_] Amateur Astronomy 126 July 23rd 09 10:38 PM
Astronaut Mass Exodus coming [email protected] Space Shuttle 14 June 23rd 08 05:30 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:57 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.