Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational: SteveF posts sciencey things that no one reads before other sites copy him

Topic: Death by Specialization (Read 2149 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Re: Death by Specialization
Reply #25
Point to Voxrat

Re: Death by Specialization
Reply #26
I completely disagree with your analysis ... and the fundamental reason I disagree is because you have bought the modern lie that "modern high tech has reduced food shortages and diseases" ... it hasn't.
Yeah. Actually, it has.
Yeah if your definition of "food" includes "Wheaties" produced by Big Ag.

 Sorry, but I have a different definition of "food."

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Death by Specialization
Reply #27
Shitting in buckets - if properly managed -  would be a hell of a lot more healthy for the community (which includes our soils) than any of our modern systems.
And modern systems - if properly managed - are a hell of a lot more healthy for the community (which includes our soils) than shitting in a bucket.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Death by Specialization
Reply #28
Yeah if your definition of "food" includes "Wheaties" produced by Big Ag.
My definition of "food" is just stuff that keeps people from starving. And, no, "Wheaties" does not figure into that in any significant way.

Try to curb your self-righteousness.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Death by Specialization
Reply #29
The damnedable thing about reducing food shortages and diseases, of course, is that that causes the population to balloon.
And the more people you have, the more food shortages you're going to have.

Thomas Malthus had some thoughts on this topic.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • Zombies!
  • Honorary Manipulative Bitch
Re: Death by Specialization
Reply #30
I completely disagree with your analysis ... and the fundamental reason I disagree is because you have bought the modern lie that "modern high tech has reduced food shortages and diseases" ... it hasn't.
Yeah. Actually, it has.
Yeah if your definition of "food" includes "Wheaties" produced by Big Ag.

 Sorry, but I have a different definition of "food."
And that still consists of fast food.
My own theory is that he kens fine he jist disnae wantae.

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Death by Specialization
Reply #31
I completely disagree with your analysis ... and the fundamental reason I disagree is because you have bought the modern lie that "modern high tech has reduced food shortages and diseases" ... it hasn't.

Hey Bluffy, how many of your children died before age 6?
How many have been crippled by polio?
When's the last time anyone you know suffered with dysentery, measels, mumps, etc?

And if you really believe all this, best be giving up those solar panels, your iPhone, your car, even your baled straw. Not to mention that town food you rely upon to supplement your diet.
Are we there yet?

  • osmanthus
  • Administrator
  • Fingerer of piglets
Re: Death by Specialization
Reply #32
The damnedable thing about reducing food shortages and diseases, of course, is that that causes the population to balloon.
Well, actually what causes the population to balloon is having too many babies. Swift had some thoughts on that.
Truth is out of style

Re: Death by Specialization
Reply #33
The natural opposite of specialization is waste, and amatures making everything.
The natural extension of specialization, however, is that researchers increasingly are unable to communicate their understanding with outside fields. It's a large part of the reason that consilience has partly replaced falsifiability as the modern philosophy of science.
I didn't know that this has occurred but if you're right, then this would explain the huge whoppers now accepted as truth by mainstream science.  I suspect that geocentrism enjoyed "consilience" in it's heyday.

Not really. Epicycles had to be invented to account for the movements of the planets. Islamic scientists were talking about "doubts on Ptolemy" for centuries before Copernicus came along, even though they officially didn't come out and say it was wrong (like the Bible, the Qu'ran suggested the Earth was the centre of the universe). If anything people had to keep inventing stuff to make the observations fit the theory, stuff for which there was no evidence, and were not happy about having to do so.
Why do I bother?

Re: Death by Specialization
Reply #34
I completely disagree with your analysis ... and the fundamental reason I disagree is because you have bought the modern lie that "modern high tech has reduced food shortages and diseases" ... it hasn't.
It has for the people who have access to it. How many people caught measles in the US last year compared with 100 years ago? How many people had polio compared with 70 years ago?

There are certainly problems with "food deserts", but in many places that's a more complex problem to do with relative pricing, wages, education, and siting of shops, rather than not knowing if your harvest will last through the winter.
Why do I bother?

Re: Death by Specialization
Reply #35
Good God  no wonder our world is in trouble

Re: Death by Specialization
Reply #36
Good God  no wonder our world is in trouble
What, because Islamic scholars in the 9th century recognised that Ptolemy's theory was increasingly untenable? I think if that was the problem we'd have noticed by now.
Why do I bother?

Re: Death by Specialization
Reply #37
I completely disagree with your analysis ... and the fundamental reason I disagree is because you have bought the modern lie that "modern high tech has reduced food shortages and diseases" ... it hasn't.

Childhood mortality and the average life-span have improved vastly. When was the last proper famine in the USA? I am not even sure the dust bowl really counts.

Food security has become so common-place that we are far more likely to get ill as a result of overindulgence than a shortage of any kind.

I get the feeling that one of your famous doubling down on stupid is not far away. Or possibly one of those unilateral redefinitions of basic concepts. Like, maybe food is not going to be food anymore, or diseases are not diseases unless they meet your criteria? I look forward to finding out how you are going to manage to hit yourself in the back of the head with your own bat this time.

Re: Death by Specialization
Reply #38
Quote from: vivisectus
one of those unilateral redefinitions of basic concepts. Like, maybe food is not going to be food anymore, or diseases are not diseases unless they meet your criteria?

I completely disagree with your analysis ... and the fundamental reason I disagree is because you have bought the modern lie that "modern high tech has reduced food shortages and diseases" ... it hasn't.
Yeah. Actually, it has.
Yeah if your definition of "food" includes "Wheaties" produced by Big Ag.

 Sorry, but I have a different definition of "food."

Bwahahaha you were way ahead of me, it seems!

  • JonF
Re: Death by Specialization
Reply #39
We would all be much more healthy if we could wave a magic wand and instantly be transformed into an agrarian society of small closely associated villages spread out all over the countryside in which food production is very low tech (at least from the perspective of say, a Google engineer) - milk, meat, egg production produced by flerds with live human shepherds with border collies, gardening by individuals or neighborhoods done the old fashioned ways, simple, basic fishing (for Pingu) and simple low tech gathering of nuts and berries.
14th century.
"I would never consider my evaluation of his work to be fair minded unless I had actually read his own words." - Dave Hawkins

  • borealis
  • Administrator
Re: Death by Specialization
Reply #40
I completely disagree with your analysis ... and the fundamental reason I disagree is because you have bought the modern lie that "modern high tech has reduced food shortages and diseases" ... it hasn't.

Childhood mortality and the average life-span have improved vastly. When was the last proper famine in the USA? I am not even sure the dust bowl really counts.

Food security has become so common-place that we are far more likely to get ill as a result of overindulgence than a shortage of any kind.

I get the feeling that one of your famous doubling down on stupid is not far away. Or possibly one of those unilateral redefinitions of basic concepts. Like, maybe food is not going to be food anymore, or diseases are not diseases unless they meet your criteria? I look forward to finding out how you are going to manage to hit yourself in the back of the head with your own bat this time.
Now now - any talk about historical high child (and mother) mortality rates pushes Dave firmly into 'I can't hear you' mode. He won't even visit a few graveyards to read the old headstones.

Re: Death by Specialization
Reply #41
Shitting in buckets - if properly managed -  would be a hell of a lot more healthy for the community (which includes our soils) than any of our modern systems.

Did they have high-speed Wi-Fi in the 14th century?  Let me think.

An evidence free claim, and a question.

And...
No wifi without specialisation.
"That which can be asserted with evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." (Dave Hawkins)

  • osmanthus
  • Administrator
  • Fingerer of piglets
Re: Death by Specialization
Reply #42
I completely disagree with your analysis ... and the fundamental reason I disagree is because you have bought the modern lie that "modern high tech has reduced food shortages...
Hey Dave, why is it that modern high-tech countries don't have food shortages, and that when food shortages are seen today they are in low-tech countries?

Inquiring buckets of popcorn want to know. :parrot:
Truth is out of style

  • JonF
Re: Death by Specialization
Reply #43
Did they have high-speed Wi-Fi in the 14th century?  Let me think.
That's the point, doofus.
"I would never consider my evaluation of his work to be fair minded unless I had actually read his own words." - Dave Hawkins

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Death by Specialization
Reply #44
Shitting in buckets - if properly managed -  would be a hell of a lot more healthy for the community (which includes our soils) than any of our modern systems.

Did they have high-speed Wi-Fi in the 14th century?  Let me think.

An evidence free claim, and a question.

And...
No wifi without specialisation.
Not the technology, nit the hardware, not the software, not any part of it. Bluffy would be all alone on his 10 acres. With his goats in a too small pen and perhaps some free-range prostitutes,
Are we there yet?

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Death by Specialization
Reply #45
I completely disagree with your analysis ... and the fundamental reason I disagree is because you have bought the modern lie that "modern high tech has reduced food shortages...
Hey Dave, why is it that modern high-tech countries don't have food shortages, and that when food shortages are seen today they are in low-tech countries?

Inquiring buckets of popcorn want to know. :parrot:

Yes, but, buckets of shit already know.
Are we there yet?

Re: Death by Specialization
Reply #46
 Why would I not correct the definition of "food" during a discussion about food?  Not do so would be a disservice to science.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Death by Specialization
Reply #47
Why would I not correct the definition of "food" during a discussion about food? 
You have not "corrected" anything.
You merely stated that you have a different (unspecified) definition.

Quote
Not do so would be a disservice to science.
Yeah, science really needs bozos to state they have private, unspecified, definitions of words - different (in some unstated way) from the definitions the rest of the world assigns to those words in order to, you know, communicate::)

The narcissism.
It rages.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

Re: Death by Specialization
Reply #48
Why would I not correct the definition of "food" during a discussion about food?  Not do so would be a disservice to science.

Because covering one of your usual gaffes by unilaterally deciding that a word now suddenly means something else is a cowardly, dishonest, stupid and ultimately futile act? But hey go ahead. I love watching you flail. Last time it turned out that the authority you yourself invoked said the exact opposite of what you were saying, which you then tried to weasel out of by deciding he must have been lying. That still makes me chuckle.

  • JonF
Re: Death by Specialization
Reply #49
Why would I not correct the definition of "food" during a discussion about food?  Not do so would be a disservice to science.
Last time it turned out that the authority you yourself invoked said the exact opposite of what you were saying, which you then tried to weasel out of by deciding he must have been lying.
That sort of thing is quite common with Davie.
"I would never consider my evaluation of his work to be fair minded unless I had actually read his own words." - Dave Hawkins