Jump to content

Ross Scott

Administrator
  • Content Count

    3,401
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Ross Scott

  1. Ask questions or topics to discuss here for the next videochat with fans on 5:00pm UTC on June 7th at twitch.tv/rossbroadcast. I'm embarrassed I don't have a new video yet, but it's coming ASAP; I really hope to have it out before the videochat. It's going to be about 75-80 minutes long, has a massive amount of editing this time. More Game Dungeon / Freeman's Mind afterwards!
  2. Ask questions or topics to discuss here for the next videochat with fans on 5:00pm UTC on June 7th at twitch.tv/rossbroadcast. I'm embarrassed I don't have a new video yet, but it's coming ASAP; I really hope to have it out before the videochat. It's going to be about 75-80 minutes long, has a massive amount of editing this time. More Game Dungeon / Freeman's Mind afterwards! This is a blog post. To read the original post, please click here »
  3. Ugh, I wrote up more on the forest part, but lost it. I was going to say the sources you listed showed it as being debatable. The goodnews article said it was growing, though that was before the Australia and Amazon fires. The Yale article said it was still going down under each metric, but only fractionally so under one of them, with it being up for debate. So it could be that part isn't as dire as I think, though you agree the biodiversity is going down, which I see as playing with fire for long term survival of the ecosystem (in a way that benefits us anyway).
  4. Nah it's fine, I actually wasn't looking for a debate either, it just seemed like such a bold claim to make. Besides, you already gave me gold with the no good games after 2004 comment for the games list video, don't worry about it. Again, if people aren't making personal attacks or stuff that sounds like hate speech, it's not a problem saying whatever. I think capitalism does have a purpose, it's purpose is to make profit for those who invest their capital. Wikipedia says something similar. But fine, it could be I'm incorrectly correlating growth with capitalism. How does capitalism PREVENT growth when it goes against profits to do so? Take the Amazon forest. If I let a plot of jungle just sit there, I don't make any money from that. Whereas if I clearcut it, sell the wood, then turn it into a cattle ranch or plantation, that makes a lot of money. What mechanism does capitalism have to PREVENT that? I don't see any, hence the reason I say it leads to growth. It may not be its purpose, but it strikes me as an inevitable side effect. Finally, you say I make some flawed assumptions on my worldview. Perhaps, allow me to clarify each: I don't assume that, I think it's a case-by-case basis. I think SOME growth only comes from more resources and globally we're using more resources than at any point in history. We use more minerals, lumber, livestock, fossil fuels, plants, etc. than ever before. Now sure we can become more EFFICIENT with them, but we're still using more TOTAL. I'm not assuming they don't offer incentives to save, of course supply and demand comes into play. I'm saying the profit incentive is usually greater. Global warming is a perfect example of this. Exxon was aware of the impact on climate of global warming from their OWN RESEARCH back in the 70s, so they supressed that information and now it's unlikely we'll be able to reverse the effects. Dupont was aware manufacturing Teflon was poisoning the environment from their own research, but that would have meant a loss of profit, so they suppressed that information and now it's everywhere in trace amounts, with countless levels of cancer rates increasing. There was incentive to save, but there was MORE incentive to make a lot of money! Still is! Simple version: Some problems you can wait until they manifest themselves to deal with them. Markets are excellent for pricing those. Some problems you can't, you have to be proactive or else you won't be able to solve the problem by the time it manifests itself. Markets have a horrendous track record on those. Finally, I'll end it with this: I don't know if I have much else to say here. I mean this not in a hostile way at all, but I think this view is delusional. You yourself said we have less biodiversity now. Many medicines we have come from biodiverse regions, they wouldn't even exist if they were depleted earlier as opposed to later. If what you're saying was true, plants and animals that we value would not have gone extinct under our watch, let alone by the hundreds. Humans in the past obviously valued species like the dodo bird and mammoth for food. They weren't infinite. The coral reefs are currently dying much faster than they're being replenished, this has enormous consequences to the ecosystem and our survival at this scale. We've currently extracted the MAJORITY of oil via conventional methods, it's only technological breakthroughs that allowed for more, and even then with a declining EROI. At pre-covid demand levels (which our ENTIRE modern civilization runs on), we had enough left for about 50 years assuming steady production, which was likely a fantasy. While we can synthesize oil using renewable resources it's nowhere CLOSE to the scale it's used at, there's not enough farmland on earth for that. That's oil we need to survive, the majority of fertilizers and pesticides are dependent on that. Again, we're overextended. Now it will probably take a generation or two before everything to hit, but that's not even close to infinite. Anyway, I think I'm done here, we got to the core of our disagreement. You think resources are infinite (and to be fair, so does most of the modern world, I'm the one in the minority, not you), I do not. I see this as a kind of collective madness. I presented some examples of valued resources we've depleted, I see no reason to believe there aren't more coming.
  5. I think your logic is flawed there. Fine, let's say invaders come to the island. You could have someone bestowed with emergency powers ahead of time to take over during such an event to give orders to combat them in that event that there wasn't time for group plans. Additionally plans for many different scenarios could be derived ahead of time, prior to any invasion. The military operates this way. They have plans for thousands of possible threats, even if most of them will never come to fruition. You can't prepare for everything, but you can prepare for many different scenarios, which can also mean you're halfway prepared or more for some similar emergencies that you may have missed. You say "therefore all we can do is be 100% reactionary and let open markets do its thing". I don't see how you jump to that conclusion at all. I just explained how the military prepares for many different scenarios. That's also the purpose of groups like FEMA, to prepare for potential disasters. They don't know if they'll have an earthquake or a hurricane, or a volcano eruption or what, but they can be semi-prepared for a lot of different scenarios. You can do the same with economic crashes, medical emergencies, technology disruptions, etc. In the Invisible War video, I talk about a Carrington event. We are SO not prepared for that. We know it's almost certainly going to happen again. There's no reason we NEED to be 100% reactionary, just that's a reflection of how short-sighted we currently are. Furthermore, that's not really a criticism of any government or economic system. You can be prepared for scenarios under socialism, communism, democracy, fascism, monarchies, theocracies, etc. It all depends on what the priorities of the people in charge are. Finally, I don't get how you jump from that to saying the open market is the only way to do things. If anything, that's a liability, because preparedness is often unprofitable. If invaders come to the island and everyone is competing economically with no plans or authority, I don't see how that would protect anyone. Everyone being divided rule-wise would be easier to conquer.
  6. Sure, growth is slowing down, but it's still growing. I've heard that we're due to level off at 11 billion. My point is we're overextended RIGHT NOW. We're having increased global deforestation, half of all wildlife has been eradicated since the 70s, ocean health is getting worse and we're STILL GROWING. Here are some sources on the ecosystem being diminished: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/12/deforestation-world-losing-area-forest-size-of-uk-each-year-report-finds https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/30/humanity-wiped-out-animals-since-1970-major-report-finds https://www.climatechangenews.com/2019/09/25/dying-oceans-rising-faster-predicted-un-warns-stark-report/ As for the socialism v. capitalism thing, I'm not saying either would preserve the environment. My point is I think the very core of capitalism makes it impossible. The purpose of capitalism is to maximize profit for those with capital, correct? That means exploiting any and all resources. Taking a more reserved or long term sustainable approach means you fall behind and can lose competitively to those who are more aggressive and can capitalize in the shorter to medium term. This means an almost maximum use of resources. Socialism doesn't necessarily mean that. It CAN mean that, like you mentioned, with fulfilling quotas, and collectively agreeing to come to a similar outcome. My point was neither one obviously solves the problem, though capitalism appears to accelerate the problem as much as possible. EDIT: Going back to the deserted island scenario. Say we realize that if we overfish we won't have enough food for the year, here are some ways of handling it: Ideal socialist approach: Everyone votes and collectively agrees to impose limits on how much we will fish, so we can continue eating all year. Likely socialist approach: Everyone votes that they don't want to reduce how much fish they eat, because they like fish, so they will continue overfishing until there aren't enough left, people starve. Capitalist approach: Steve fishes as much as possible right now so there will be more for him, but Jim and Charles also do the same so that Steve doesn't get all the fish. The fish are depleted rapidly, people starve.
  7. Here's the longest videochat with fans so far. The sound quality isn't great since I'm still setting up in my new apartment and haven't dampened it yet. There's nothing too important here, I advise against watching this unless you're really bored, which you might be if you're stuck at home. More real videos coming!
  8. Here's the longest videochat with fans so far. The sound quality isn't great since I'm still setting up in my new apartment and haven't dampened it yet. There's nothing too important here, I advise against watching this unless you're really bored, which you might be if you're stuck at home. More real videos coming! This is a blog post. To read the original post, please click here »
  9. Ask questions or topics to discuss here for the next videochat with fans on 4:00pm UTC on May 2nd at twitch.tv/rossbroadcast. I should be set up enough to stream, though it could be a little echoey, depends on what I can set up between now and then. Things are still a bit chaotic for me, but more videos are coming!
  10. Ask questions or topics to discuss here for the next videochat with fans on 4:00pm UTC on May 2nd at twitch.tv/rossbroadcast. I should be set up enough to stream, though it could be a little echoey, depends on what I can set up between now and then. Things are still a bit chaotic for me, but more videos are coming! This is a blog post. To read the original post, please click here »
  11. I think you're comparing apples to mountains. If the society had a positive / negative opinion of Starfleet, but have no means of contacting them in the future, then it doesn't really matter much either way. Again, we're weighing their opinion of Starfleet and how that may influence their society vs. ACTIVELY changing their development in a way that will lead to massive changes. In short, yes, what Picard did leaves association with Starfleet at a minimum. It ALSO dramatically changes their development more than any other option. Isn't the point of the prime directive to have a minimum impact on their development as a society? By trying to minimize association with Starfleet, in this case it causes a more tangible prime directive violation. There's no completely clean option here, but one has a MUCH bigger impact than the others.
  12. I'd say we're in debatable territory here. If they really wanted "little impact on the culture as possible", then they should have sent back the drugs AND the ship parts so everything is as it was or sent NEITHER. There's certainly the argument to be made that Starfleet is walking away with things neutral, they gave them back what was theirs + nothing more, but they also changed the course of history for the culture significantly by sending back the drugs. That's a very LARGE impact on how the development of their culture is going to unfold than if they had not sent back the drugs. Consider this: Scenario A - sent the drugs + the parts: That would have kicked the can down the road, but had almost no change to the culture. You can argue the Federation would have artificially prolonged their unsustainable path, but the inhabitants may all but forget about The Federation and it would just delay things, not change the change the course of history drastically. Culture contamination would be very minor. Hell, this was what Picard was originally going to do anyway! He didn't seem to think it was a violation of the Prime Directive initially! Scenario B - withhold everything: This could create resentment towards the Federation, but that would likely be overshadowed by their larger problems, namely everyone going into withdrawl. Once they recovered, that might even lead to greater respect for the Federation after realizing they saw what they did not. Cultural contamination would be minor, but likely insignificant. This is pretty much the exact outcome that would occurred had the Enterprise not shown up + 4 extra people live and can say The Federation sucks. Scenario C - What Picard did: Creates a massive power play for the drugs that DRASTICALLY changes the history of the planet. Moreover these are events that WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED if Starfleet hadn't intervened. Cultural contamination wouldn't be linked back to Starfleet, but it would still be extreme. It would be like if aliens came to Earth and escalated the Cuban missile crisis, but did it in such a way we never knew they were here. Sure, they didn't spread their culture, but they totally screwed with development in an extreme way and led to way more people dying.
  13. New Game Dungeon! I originally thought the follow-up episode would be next, but this one managed to shove its way to the front. I am probably moving soon and won't have internet for about a week, so there will be a bit of a blackout from me, but considering my normal self, it probably won't be noticeably. Giant side video coming next after my move!
  14. New Game Dungeon! I originally thought the follow-up episode would be next, but this one managed to shove its way to the front. I am probably moving soon and won't have internet for about a week, so there will be a bit of a blackout from me, but considering my normal self, it probably won't be noticeably. Giant side video coming next after my move! This is a blog post. To read the original post, please click here »
  15. Lots of rambling, new Game Dungeon coming soon.
  16. Lots of rambling, new Game Dungeon coming soon. This is a blog post. To read the original post, please click here »
  17. What part of my analysis is false? I wasn't against Picard saving the survivors. I was saying he shouldn't have sent the drugs back with them AFTER rescuing them. If the Enterprise never showed up, the drugs would have burned up in the atmosphere (along with the survivors). I'm saying him giving back the drugs was the violation; the Enterprise's actions literally changed the course of history for planet A in a big way. Simply rescuing the survivors wouldn't change the course of history much, if at all. He saw helping the addicts as violating the prime directive. Fine. The planet would have gone through hell and recovered in some fashion. You can argue he shouldn't have helped them, but then he ALSO interfered by giving them one last shipment that would never have made it otherwise.
  18. Ask questions or topics to discuss here for the next videochat with fans on 5:00pm UTC on April 5th at twitch.tv/rossbroadcast. I was originally going to delay this because of my move, but my move has been delayed because of the quarantine, so I may as well have this sooner. I hope to have a new video out before this!
  19. Ask questions or topics to discuss here for the next videochat with fans on 5:00pm UTC on April 5th at twitch.tv/rossbroadcast. I was originally going to delay this because of my move, but my move has been delayed because of the quarantine, so I may as well have this sooner. I hope to have a new video out before this! This is a blog post. To read the original post, please click here »
  20. New video! This is a side video I've thought about doing before and now felt like a good time to do so. This is NOT the big side video I've been working on, that's still coming later! I've had an idea of making a video on this for a couple years, but in addition to wanting to get more videos out faster due to the quarantine, I felt like this one ties in well towards thinking about the state of the world in general. Hope to have an new Game Dungeon out soon-ish!
  21. New video! This is a side video I've thought about doing before and now felt like a good time to do so. This is NOT the big side video I've been working on, that's still coming later! I've had an idea of making a video on this for a couple years, but in addition to wanting to get more videos out faster due to the quarantine, I felt like this one ties in well towards thinking about the state of the world in general. Hope to have an new Game Dungeon out soon-ish! This is a blog post. To read the original post, please click here »
  22. Here's the again-delayed Freeman's Mind! This is another shorter one, though I guarantee the next one will be noticeably longer. Unfortunately, due to quarantine complications, I'm going to be suspending Freeman's Mind until my neighbors aren't encouraged by law to be staying at home. The screaming just isn't going to stop in episode 14 and I'll disturb more people than I normally do if I keep it up. Instead, I have another big side video I've been working on coming up and more Game Dungeon coming!
  23. Here's the again-delayed Freeman's Mind! This is another shorter one, though I guarantee the next one will be noticeably longer. Unfortunately, due to quarantine complications, I'm going to be suspending Freeman's Mind until my neighbors aren't encouraged by law to be staying at home. The screaming just isn't going to stop in episode 14 and I'll disturb more people than I normally do if I keep it up. Instead, I have another big side video I've been working on coming up and more Game Dungeon coming! This is a blog post. To read the original post, please click here »
  24. The region I'm living in has declared a pseudo-quarantine and are discouraging people from going out more than necessary. This actually won't affect the videos too much, but may delay my move. I'm also going to suspend FM2 Episode 14, since I should probably cut back on constant shouting since a lot of people will be at home in the apartments around me now. Episode 13 is still due out ASAP and I'll be working on the upcoming side video / Game Dungeon / movie instead.
  25. The region I'm living in has declared a pseudo-quarantine and are discouraging people from going out more than necessary. This actually won't affect the videos too much, but may delay my move. I'm also going to suspend FM2 Episode 14, since I should probably cut back on constant shouting since a lot of people will be at home in the apartments around me now. Episode 13 is still due out ASAP and I'll be working on the upcoming side video / Game Dungeon / movie instead. This is a blog post. To read the original post, please click here »
×
×
  • Create New...

This website uses cookies, as do most websites since the 90s. By using this site, you consent to cookies. We have to say this or we get in trouble. Learn more.